Re: revised mainEventLoop

Although depending on your state machine your conditions could check for
time differences or some other externally updating information source.
 This would mean you would want to poll the eventless transitions again.

Chris


On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:55 AM, chris nuernberger <cnuernber@gmail.com>wrote:

> I see what you are saying and you are correct as far as I can tell, this
> is more efficient.  Don't you need a second while loop for external events
> that gets called if enabled transitions is empty?
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:10 AM, David Junger <tffy@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> Le 8 mar 2013 à 17:32, chris nuernberger a écrit :
>>
>> > Furthermore you could have conditions in the datamodel which have
>> changed thus enabling eventless transitions even though to an outside
>> observer you are testing the same eventless transition set over and over
>> again.
>>
>> The SC itself can't do anything while you're just dequeuing events from
>> the internal queue. So any change to the datamodel (except for _event) will
>> have to be done by the platform, which should know better than to allow
>> them in the middle of an event loop. Or by side-effects in event
>> conditions. But please let's assume the platform is safe enough and the
>> authors aren't hacking with side-effects. That means the only thing
>> changing in the whole SC, while dequeueing events as I suggested, is _event.
>>
>>                         David
>>
>
>
>
> --
> A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Emerson
>



-- 
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Emerson