[boost] Re: review of proposed fsm library

Dave Gomboc wrote:

The distinction made between state and state_machine, which I consider to be unfortunate, was not justified in the rationale...

There is at least one good reason - the library supports both synchronous and asynchronous state machines, which are essentially different beasts and are operated quite differently. No such distinction exists for states, therefore they shouldn't be treated the same way as state machines. Otherwise you would be able to mix both synchronous and asynchronous states in one machine, which doesn't make sense.