Robert Bell wrote:
F2 defines termination as "making a transition to the final state". It's far from clear that destroying a state machine should make a transition to the final state. Specifically, if the machine is in a state which has no transition to the final state, what does it mean to terminate the machine? If the machine is in such a state when it is destroyed, does it make sense to pretend it can transition to the final state when no such transition exists?
You can see this as another assumption related to A1...
I would think that when a state machine object is destroyed, no actions (exit or otherwise) should be executed; rather, it should just tear down the state machine and release its resources (state objects, transitions, whatever). What am I missing?
You're not missing anything. If you disagree with the assumptions I make then I will not be able to convince you. The only hope I have is that you will see that my assumptions do make sense *in practice*. Regards, Andreas