Hi Chistophe I have tried in the little example the change you have suggested : struct LogDefer { typedef int deferring_action; template <class EVT,class FSM,class SourceState,class TargetState> void operator()(EVT const& evt,FSM& fsm,SourceState& src_,TargetState& ) const { std::cout << fsm.m_SmName << " DEFERED: " << evt.getName() << std::endl; fsm.defer_event(evt); } }; but it did not help for me .... ?. :(. Sill stack overflow. Cheers Richie On 7 December 2011 12:30, Richard Szabo <sz.richard@googlemail.com> wrote:
Hi Richard,
ah, how could I miss this? There is a mistake in your LogDefer functor: typedef int deferring_action;
Ah thanks for finding it ... I will try this out for you. In a mean time I have implemented our own event queue. But I will give a try to the original one ... it would be better to use that anyhow ...
For the VC problem I had to time to play with it at all :( I found a one line change in the boost back end to solve my problem ..... I had to do this I was under high time pressure ..... even you disagree :(. line : if (!handled && !is_contained() && !is_completion_event<Event>::type::value) changed to : if ( ( handled == HANDLED_FALSE || handled == HANDLED_GUARD_REJECT) && !is_contained() && !is_completion_event<Event>::type::value)
However I will prepare you a test project with the complexity/size similar to our current .... future size / complexity just for experiment and also give you a strip down version of our way of splitting the state machines maybe you can review it and give some ideas how to do thinks better :). But it takes some time to prepare this example and I have to check where are the limits of sharing our code base with open source community .... I personally would be happy to give all as it is but the company has different view about it I believe.
I find MSM great I think it is easy to understand very expressive but the biggest downsize is the scalability in order to use it for our purpose, to write a complex communication protocol stack with a lot of events and state machines connected to each other. MSM is not usable as it is .... ( sorry to saying that It would hurt me if MSM would be my code ) we had to put in some effort to find an semi decent way of get around this problem ... So I think there is some work needs to be done in this area I'm happy to help as much as I can with it ... eg try to prepare an example project for experimenting ....
So thanks for the help ... I will come back to you when I have something to play with but it will take some time ... hopefully it can be a christmas persent :).
Thans for all the great support ...
Cheers Richie
This should be defined in the functor, not inside operator(). Then there will be no overflow.
Cheers, Christophe
PS: any news about your VC9 problem?
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost