You brought 2 reasons for this impossibility: 1. Automatic entry/exit. You answer that "With separate FSMs you'd have to manage this yourself". 2. Automatic event dispatch. You answer that "Again, with separate FSMs you'd have to do that yourself (dispatch to first FSM and if that didn't consume the event, dispatch to second FSM and so on)."
It appears that you should read the 2005 post a lot more carefully, especially the quoted context. The remarks you quote above have *nothing* to do with the impossibility I claimed.
No, I won't spend "a lot more" time trying to decipher the supposedly hidden meaning of your post and invest the time more wisely by making MSM more useful. The link I added seems quite clear to me and anyone interested can make himself his own opinion by opening it. You did not bother bringing an argumentation disproving my claim, so I will simply keep it. As you also didn't address the more important technical part (multiple TU) of my answer, I will consider it accepted.
On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 22:18 +0100, Christophe Henry wrote:
It appears that you should read the 2005 post a lot more carefully, especially the quoted context. The remarks you quote above have *nothing* to do with the impossibility I claimed.
No, I won't spend "a lot more" time trying to decipher the supposedly hidden meaning of your post and invest the time more wisely by making MSM more useful.
Well that last comment is at least a positive practical outcome. I've been keeping right out of this precisely because it is a waste of everyone's time. I'm personally prepared to let quite a lot go due to ambiguities of the medium, never mind language barriers, maybe you should seriously consider doing the same. In case that isn't clear enough: I find your dogmatic attitude that your interpretation of Andreas's post lacking in grace and courtesy, never mind whether your interpretation is "correct".
The link I added seems quite clear to me and anyone interested can make himself his own opinion by opening it.
I did. I felt no need to respond as my personal interpretation was quite different to yours, and I couldn't see anything productive coming from responding to a post that seemed to be unnecessarily confrontational. Seasons greetings....
"Christophe Henry" <christophe.j.henry@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:22d657a20912201318q54ac7093xcb75e8e5b0b6258b@mail.gmail.com...
You brought 2 reasons for this impossibility: 1. Automatic entry/exit. You answer that "With separate FSMs you'd have to manage this yourself". 2. Automatic event dispatch. You answer that "Again, with separate FSMs you'd have to do that yourself (dispatch to first FSM and if that didn't consume the event, dispatch to second FSM and so on)."
It appears that you should read the 2005 post a lot more carefully, especially the quoted context. The remarks you quote above have *nothing* to do with the impossibility I claimed.
No, I won't spend "a lot more" time trying to decipher the supposedly hidden meaning of your post and invest the time more wisely by making MSM more useful.
Christophe, you definitely made a mistake interpreting that post, even after supposedly having read it twice. And no, it's neither difficult to interpret nor is there a "hidden meaning". To the contrary, this is one of the rare posts where the quoted context was preserved perfectly. Given your writing skills and your demonstrated intelligence, I think it is pretty safe to assume that you simply haven't read the post carefully enough. Moreover, the web page you linked to (<http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2005/03/81853.php>) also happens to color the text so that it's much clearer to see who said what. I think anyone with a bit of exposure to usenet groups should be able to see that the post contains an exchange between David Abrahams and me. Moreover, it is also quite clear that the exchange went as follows: 1) Dave: "I'm not saying that Aleksey's library can handle all practical state machines. I'm saying that it's possible to build a statically-dispatched FSM library that handles all practical state machines." 2) Andreas: "In one TU or spread over multiple TUs?" 3) Dave: "I was thinking of the latter." 4) Andreas: "That depends on the functionality. I don't think it is possible if you want to provide support for orthogonal regions." 5) Dave: "Sorry, I don't really understand the concept. How are they different from separate state machines?" 6) Andreas: "Orthogonal states are different from separate FSMs in two ways: 1. Automatic entry/exit: If a transition ..." (see link above for full content) Now, how exactly is it not cristal-clear that comment 6 is in reply to Dave's question "How are they [orthogonal regions] different from separate state machines?". More precisely, comment 6 explains why separate state machines are a bad substitute for orthogonal regions and has absolutely nothing to do with my claim you quoted.
The link I added seems quite clear to me and anyone interested can make himself his own opinion by opening it.
Your very first remark about that 2005 post of mine shows that you've misunderstood it the first time. As I demonstrated above, you're still totally missing at least part of the meaning of the post even after my clarification, which you seemingly mostly brushed aside. Finally, even after being alerted to the fact that your comments are totally off the mark, you apparently insist on not considering that you might have misunderstood the 2005 post. Now, everybody misreads stuff once in a while and I usually don't hold that against anyone, but when they do so repeatedly without much apparent consideration for diverging inputs from others then I do hold it against them. Really, in this exchange you've been showing a stubbornness that I haven't seen in a while. Note that I'm not claiming that the 2005 post or any of my ensuing comments are flawless but I do claim that the overwhelming majority of the people with a similar background as yours would have understood the 2005 post differently than you have, especially after my clarification and my previous post.
You did not bother bringing an argumentation disproving my claim, so I will simply keep it.
What claim exactly? The one where you say that you've proven that you can implement at least as much as statechart with meta-programming techniques? Well, I've tried but apparently you weren't listening.
As you also didn't address the more important technical part (multiple TU) of my answer, I will consider it accepted.
For the record: I don't accept it, because it is missing important facts about multi-TU machines. I did consider addressing this in my previous post but decided against it because I had a hunch that you wouldn't read it with sufficient care anyway. You've pretty much confirmed that hunch with your answer. I'll gladly address this once I'm confident the time invested in writing such a post will not be wasted. -- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
participants (3)
-
Andreas Huber -
Christophe Henry -
Darryl Green