Re: Re: Re: FSM Review
However, since each innermost state must know all its outer states (1), it is theoretically possible to collapse all the reactions of these states into a STT that is local for each innermost state. At a rather hefty price, this would give you constant-time lookup, *separately* for each innermost state. In FSMs with orthogonal regions multiple such innermost states can be active at the same time, which makes lookup linear again. Hence my previous remark to Dave.
1. And a state-superset transition table is not possible for compiler capability reasons? 2. You know, the NFA -> DFA conversion process is _exactly_ the process that one would use to take the state-supersets and flatten them out. Win: constant-time dispatch. Lose: scalability. Dave
Dave Gomboc wrote:
However, since each innermost state must know all its outer states (1), it is theoretically possible to collapse all the reactions of these states into a STT that is local for each innermost state. At a rather hefty price, this would give you constant-time lookup, *separately* for each innermost state. In FSMs with orthogonal regions multiple such innermost states can be active at the same time, which makes lookup linear again. Hence my previous remark to Dave.
1. And a state-superset transition table is not possible for compiler capability reasons?
You lost me. What is a state-superset?
2. You know, the NFA -> DFA conversion process is _exactly_ the process that one would use to take the state-supersets and flatten them out. Win: constant-time dispatch. Lose: scalability.
Err, yes? I'm not sure how this is relevant. Regards, -- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
participants (2)
-
Andreas Huber -
Dave Gomboc