On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Vicente Botet [via Boost] < ml-node+s2283326n4683364h3@n4.nabble.com> wrote:
Le 08/02/2016 20:32, Kris a écrit :
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Vicente Botet [via Boost] < [hidden email] http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4683364&i=0> wrote:
src + event [guard]/action = dst // guard throws runtime_error src + exception
= X // handle exception Yes, this is the idea. Great. I have improved error handling if it comes to exceptions. Right now, if you do NOT compile with `-fno-exceptions` and do not specify configure noexcept then you can handle any exceptions thrown on the transition table.
make_transition_table( *"idle"_s + "event1"_t / [] { throw std::runtime_error{"error"}; } , "idle"_s + "event2"_t / [] { throw 0; }
, *"error_handling"_s + exceptionstd::runtime_error / [] { std::cout << "exception caught" << std::endl; } , "error_handling"_s + exception<> / [] { std::cout << "generic exception caught, terminate..." << std::endl; } = X ); I missed the syntax for the orthogonal regions. It is not very explicit.
Well, you can make it more explicit if you wish by changing the syntax a bit (*"idle"_s) + "event1"_t / [] { throw std::runtime_error{"error"}; } , "idle"_s + "event2"_t / [] { throw 0; } //---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/ , (*"error_handling"_s) + exceptionstd::runtime_error / [] { }
The idea to have an orthogonal section that does the error handling is good, but how would you do error recovery?
Well, it depends whether you have to or not recover out of it. If you don't, another orthogonal region which will do the cleanup is good enough. However, if you do have to recover I would use another state for it, as you suggested. make_transition_table( (*"idle"_s) + "event1"_t / [] { throw std::runtime_error{"error"}; } , "idle"_s + "event2"_t / [] { throw 0; } , "idle"_s + exceptionstd::runtime_error / [] { ... } = "recover"_s , "recover"_s + "okay"_t = "idle"_s // fine now );
I don't think you should correlate whether MSM manage exceptions and whether the configure function is noexcept.
Why not? I find it better then being forced to setup some dummy type in the state machine to enable exception handling. Please notice that exceptions handling is enabled by default (unless you compile with -fno-exceptions). The only reason why noexcept with configure when you create a transition table counts its because it will give you more performance.
When you say " When guard/action throws an exception State Machine <<a href=" http://boost-experimental.github.io/msm-lite/user_guide/index.html##sm-state-machine "> http://boost-experimental.github.io/msm-lite/user_guide/index.html##sm-state-machine>
will stay in a current state.", do you mean that if there is an exception in the action part, the state will be the nesting state of the transition, as the exit of the source state will already be executed? If yes, this is not a leaf state, this is why I added a pseudo-state, to ensure a leaf state.
It means that if exception won't be handled and that source state will remains the current state. Exit of the source state won't happen in such case too. Change the state happens after guards/actions were executed properly, otherwise source state is still a current state. src_state + event [ guard ] / action = dst_state ^ | 1. src_state + on_exit 2. dst_state + on_entry
You can handle specific type of the exception(exception<type>) or just any(exception<>). What would be the event associated to the action in this cases?
Simply, none. It won't compile when you try to add action/guard with the event for this transition. In case of exception<>: auto guard = [] (auto event) {} // won't compile auto guard = [] () {} // okay However, you can get some info about the exception using std::current_exception auto action = [] () { auto exptr = std::current_exception(); ... }
Okay, well, msm-lite doesn't support that as a feature. However, you can achieve more or less all of mentioned things just by using C++. For example, you can extend transiton table of a state machine by joining it with another one.
auto table1 = make_transition_table(transitions...); auto table2 = make_transition_table(table1, other_transitions...);
This should respond to point 1*. 2* should need to replace the refined state in table1. Point 3 would covered if the make_transition_table function overrides the redefined transitions.
I was wondering whether your point with extending transitions can't be achieved using sub machines instead ? This is another mechanism of extension that of course should work also, but that is not related to the previous 5 extensions mechanisms
It would be great if you show how the user can address these points with your library using some run-able concrete examples.
Yea, I will work on that. Cheers for the pointers.
Thanks for working on this.
Np
Vicente
_______________________________________________ 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.