Re: [boost] [MSM] Is there any interest in C++14 Boost.MSM-eUML like library which compiles up to 60x quicker whilst being a slightly faster too?

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Rob Stewart [via Boost] < ml-node+s2283326n4683264h3@n4.nabble.com> wrote:

On February 4, 2016 5:56:29 AM EST, Kris <[hidden email] http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4683264&i=0> wrote:

...

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Rob Stewart [via Boost] < [hidden email] http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4683264&i=1> wrote:

...

On February 3, 2016 3:48:14 PM EST, Kris <[hidden email] http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4683202&i=0> wrote:

...

There are pre/post fix notations available. src_state + event [guard] / action = dst_state or dst_state <= src_state + event [guard] / action

Why = for the one and <= for the other? Can't you use = for both?

The initial idea was to have <= in the prefix notation and => in the postfix one. However the latter had to become >= which was quite awkward. I guess it can be changed into.

dst = src + event [guard] / action and src + event[guard] / action = dst

I'm just not sure whether this approach is not confusing as we have the same syntax for both notations, but sometimes src and sometimes dst is used on the left side? Do you think, if it possible, it would be better to use = for both notations?

It is rather odd to see so much on the left side of the assignment. We're accustomed to the shift operators being used directionally by IOStreams, so what about the following?

dst << src + event [guard] / action src + event[guard] / action >> dst

Yea, shift operators are symmetrical, which is awesome. I don't find them odd and I have even tried them at some point in the past. However, I have encountered one ackward thing with the usage of them with data events. src + event >> dst // '> >>' is quite unfortunate combination here All in all, I'm not sure which syntax would be the best in the end. On the one hand, '<-' and '->' would be perfect, but can't be done with operators. On the other hand, '=', '=' is short and sweat, but might be a bit confusing. Finally, '<<', '>>' is symetric, but sometimes a bit ackward. Any suggestions, which one would be the best? Right now, I'm thinking '=' is the best choice, but maybe it would be best to give user a final decision? Not sure.

[snip quoted snips, signature block, and more]

Please don't quote irrelevant content on this list.

___ Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

------------------------------ If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:

http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/MSM-Is-there-any-interest-in-C-14-Boost-M... To unsubscribe from [MSM] Is there any interest in C++14 Boost.MSM-eUML like library which compiles up to 60x quicker whilst being a slightly faster too?, click here http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=4683016&code=a3J6eXN6dG9mQGp1c2lhay5uZXR8NDY4MzAxNnwtMTY0MTkzNTIwMA== . NAML http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml

-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/MSM-Is-there-any-interest-in-C-14-Boost-M... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.