[msm] Nested submachines and explicit state entry
Hi Michael,
As already stated in the documentation it is possible to have explicit state entry into another submachine within a state machine.
Is there a possibility to have a state machine, which has another submachine with explicit state entry and that submachine has another submachine with an initial transition. I put that together in a picture and attached it. I hope then it gets clearer what I want to do. The picture shows just a simplified version of the overall state machine and I discarded some other states, transitions and orthogonal regions.
Starts becoming an interesting case ;-) Yes it should work. I tested with the same depth-level without any problem. What is not supported yet would be if your explicit entry was going into a substate of a submachine of a submachine, meaning you can only "cross" one submachine boundary. So your example is ok.
How do I have to declare the transition table and states in that case?
A transition table is always declared inside a state machine, after the states have been declared. In my examples I always declare states inside the front-end but it is only for readability. In your case, you could declare the SM1 front-end, then inside its declaration add the one for RunningStateMachine, then inside RunningStateMachine the one for Inner1 and Inner2. After Inner1 and Inner2, the table for RunningStateMachine, then the table for SM1. something like: struct SM1_... { struct RunningStateMachine_... { struct Inner1_...; typedef msm::back::state_machine<Inner1_> Inner1; ... // add RunningStateMachine table }; typedef msm::back::state_machine<RunningStateMachine_> RunningStateMachine; // add SM1 table }; typedef msm::back::state_machine<SM1_> SM1;
Are there any restrictions regarding nested depth?
Not in the library. I see just 2: - your patience while compiling - your compiler. At some point, it will probably get pissed off ;-) Regards, Christophe
Hi Christophe I have made an example which implements the UML state chart provided by Michael. well it does not compiles with VC9 :(. it compiles as fare as the explicit entry target state is a simple state but does not if it is a composite sate (e.g.: a sub state machine). The example compiles and runs if you uncomment: sm.process_event(test_fsm::event1()); please find in attachment the examle cpp and the compiler output. Br. Richie On 8 June 2010 12:58, Christophe Henry <christophe.j.henry@googlemail.com> wrote:
Hi Michael,
As already stated in the documentation it is possible to have explicit state entry into another submachine within a state machine.
Is there a possibility to have a state machine, which has another submachine with explicit state entry and that submachine has another submachine with an initial transition. I put that together in a picture and attached it. I hope then it gets clearer what I want to do. The picture shows just a simplified version of the overall state machine and I discarded some other states, transitions and orthogonal regions.
Starts becoming an interesting case ;-) Yes it should work. I tested with the same depth-level without any problem. What is not supported yet would be if your explicit entry was going into a substate of a submachine of a submachine, meaning you can only "cross" one submachine boundary. So your example is ok.
How do I have to declare the transition table and states in that case?
A transition table is always declared inside a state machine, after the states have been declared. In my examples I always declare states inside the front-end but it is only for readability. In your case, you could declare the SM1 front-end, then inside its declaration add the one for RunningStateMachine, then inside RunningStateMachine the one for Inner1 and Inner2. After Inner1 and Inner2, the table for RunningStateMachine, then the table for SM1. something like:
struct SM1_... { struct RunningStateMachine_... { struct Inner1_...; typedef msm::back::state_machine<Inner1_> Inner1; ... // add RunningStateMachine table }; typedef msm::back::state_machine<RunningStateMachine_> RunningStateMachine; // add SM1 table }; typedef msm::back::state_machine<SM1_> SM1;
Are there any restrictions regarding nested depth?
Not in the library. I see just 2: - your patience while compiling - your compiler. At some point, it will probably get pissed off ;-)
Regards, Christophe _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Now I try to attach files with out zipping. On 8 June 2010 19:05, Richard Szabo <sz.richard@googlemail.com> wrote:
Hi Christophe
I have made an example which implements the UML state chart provided by Michael.
well it does not compiles with VC9 :(.
it compiles as fare as the explicit entry target state is a simple state but does not if it is a composite sate (e.g.: a sub state machine).
The example compiles and runs if you uncomment: sm.process_event(test_fsm::event1());
please find in attachment the examle cpp and the compiler output.
Br. Richie
On 8 June 2010 12:58, Christophe Henry <christophe.j.henry@googlemail.com> wrote:
Hi Michael,
As already stated in the documentation it is possible to have explicit state entry into another submachine within a state machine.
Is there a possibility to have a state machine, which has another submachine with explicit state entry and that submachine has another submachine with an initial transition. I put that together in a picture and attached it. I hope then it gets clearer what I want to do. The picture shows just a simplified version of the overall state machine and I discarded some other states, transitions and orthogonal regions.
Starts becoming an interesting case ;-) Yes it should work. I tested with the same depth-level without any problem. What is not supported yet would be if your explicit entry was going into a substate of a submachine of a submachine, meaning you can only "cross" one submachine boundary. So your example is ok.
How do I have to declare the transition table and states in that case?
A transition table is always declared inside a state machine, after the states have been declared. In my examples I always declare states inside the front-end but it is only for readability. In your case, you could declare the SM1 front-end, then inside its declaration add the one for RunningStateMachine, then inside RunningStateMachine the one for Inner1 and Inner2. After Inner1 and Inner2, the table for RunningStateMachine, then the table for SM1. something like:
struct SM1_... { struct RunningStateMachine_... { struct Inner1_...; typedef msm::back::state_machine<Inner1_> Inner1; ... // add RunningStateMachine table }; typedef msm::back::state_machine<RunningStateMachine_> RunningStateMachine; // add SM1 table }; typedef msm::back::state_machine<SM1_> SM1;
Are there any restrictions regarding nested depth?
Not in the library. I see just 2: - your patience while compiling - your compiler. At some point, it will probably get pissed off ;-)
Regards, Christophe _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
participants (2)
-
Christophe Henry -
Richard Szabo