Phil, that's exactly what I'm thinking about doing. Never planned to
eliminate test() and testsome(), just to simplify them by moving common
code to the state machine just as you suggested. We're on the same
wavelength (scary for you huh?).
I like the state machine debugger, but that will wa
So let's assume for the moment we'll take that approach, there is a
related issue with the "cleaning up." In the server, the last state
action is expected to call server_state_machine_complete as you pointed
out and return the return code it provides (which could easily be
changed to be SM_A
Sam Lang wrote:
On Jul 24, 2006, at 2:07 PM, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:47 -0400:
3) the state machine language has a keyword that lets you state that
the
next state is "terminate" which could be used to finish the state
machine, but right now the co
Sam Lang wrote:
On Jul 24, 2006, at 2:07 PM, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:47 -0400:
3) the state machine language has a keyword that lets you state that
the
next state is "terminate" which could be used to finish the state
machine, but right now the
On Jul 24, 2006, at 2:07 PM, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:47 -0400:
3) the state machine language has a keyword that lets you state
that the
next state is "terminate" which could be used to finish the state
machine, but right now the code has logic that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:47 -0400:
> 3) the state machine language has a keyword that lets you state that the
> next state is "terminate" which could be used to finish the state
> machine, but right now the code has logic that detects this and prints a
> warning that you sh
PS - sorry this is so long - its an easy read and I value your advice
- Walt
OK, I"m looking at what happens when a state machine is done. At the
moment I'm using the word "complete" to describewhat happens when a
state ACTION is finished and the state machine is ready for immediate
servi
