Big state machines
Mon Apr 25 07:32:55 CEST 2005
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 08:50:47AM +0200, Ulf Wiger wrote:
} Being explicit certainly has its advantages. I think the
} main benefit of plain_fsm might be that it can also serve
} as a library for people who want to handle system messages
} explicitly - much like your sysFsm. Was there anything
} missing in the plain_fsm utility functions that made you
} write your own library? Or was it perhaps because I hadn't
} documented the option of skipping the parse transform and
} writing more or less the way you did?
By the time I was finished it did occur to me that I could have
used plain_fsm without the parse_transform however it wasn't
clear when I started. There do remain some differences though
and they all come down to the initial objectives.
You wrote plain_fsm for folks coming from the Erlang book and
migrating to an OTP environment. I wrote sys_fsm for the gen_fsm
writer to advance to a purer use of Erlang. As such sys_fsm is
more gen_fsm like, good or bad.
More information about the erlang-questions