Ovid and I were getting fed up with the horrible DFA::Simple module, so
I wrote a new module, DFA::StateMachine, to take its place in our work.
But I'm no computer scientist, so I'm not even sure whether the name is
right or if the module functions the way a DFA state machine is
--- Orton, Yves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe: FSA::Rules is better?
I'm quite happy about that name, assuming it truly describes what we've
done. I also don't have a strong comp-sci background, so I appreciate
pedant mode.
Having said that it looks like an interesting module. Id be curious
Based on this definition, I'm not sure if my module is a DFA or an NFA
state machine. In each state, you can define rules for transitioning to
other states. When you call the check() method, it checks each of these
in the order you defined them and transitions to the first state for
which
On Dec 15, 2004, at 11:00 AM, David Coppit wrote:
Yes, but not in the traditional sense. Traditionally, you can only
have 1
transition from a state for a given input. i.e. the model all by itself
defines a deterministic behavior. What you actually have is
model+algorithm defining a deterministic
On Dec 15, 2004, at 7:04 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
- I'd suggest renaming check() to
attempt_transition() and have it return
the new state or undef (not croak) if it can't
transition at the moment.
How 'bout I borrow DFA::Simple's
Check_For_NextState()? No?
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, David E. Wheeler wrote:
I guess that makes it a DFA, no?
Yes, but not in the traditional sense. Traditionally, you can only have 1
transition from a state for a given input. i.e. the model all by itself
defines a deterministic behavior. What you actually have is
On Dec 15, 2004, at 12:43 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
D'oh! I've already renamed it DFA::Rules in Subversion. Ah, well, at
least it's easy to change. Look for the new module to be on CPAN later
today.
And here it is:
The following report has been written by the PAUSE namespace indexer.
Please
On Dec 15, 2004, at 12:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- get_next_state() returns a new DFA object, which
is in the next state. If there is no next state, it
returns undef.
What's that from?
In version 2 I'll make the states objects. But this will do for now. :-)
Regards,
David
On Dec 15, 2004, at 3:56 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
It seems to me that your code could be used to implement either
a DFA or an NFA, so you might want to call it it an FSM.
Algorithm::FSM, perhaps? Or maybe Decision::FSM??
I went with FSM::Rules. I think it's a good name, and falls in line, I
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Orton, Yves wrote:
The term DFA::StateMachine is like say Car::Car.
Right.
A DFA is by definition a state machine (it stands for determinisitic
finite state automata). And after a review of the code IMO using the
term DFA is a bad call. Normally DFA implies a specific type of
David Coppit replied on 15 December 2004 14:21
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Orton, Yves wrote:
The term DFA::StateMachine is like say Car::Car.
Right.
A DFA is by definition a state machine (it stands for
determinisitic
finite state automata). And after a review of the code IMO
using the
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 10:08:43AM -, Orton, Yves wrote:
Ovid and I were getting fed up with the horrible DFA::Simple module, so
I wrote a new module, DFA::StateMachine, to take its place in our work.
But I'm no computer scientist, so I'm not even sure whether the name is
right
On Dec 15, 2004, at 9:42 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
- Then define check() to be { self-attempt_transition() || croak
... }
But a better name than check() would also be good.
Ah, I guess you like the idea of attempt_transition() returning undef
on failure but not die'ing, eh? I guess it'd be
On Dec 15, 2004, at 11:27 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Dec 15, 2004, at 6:34 AM, Orton, Yves wrote:
As far as I know a DFA is defined as a finite automaton where each
state/input combination can result in only one legal transition.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_state_machine) An NFA of
On Dec 15, 2004, at 12:02 PM, Ken Williams wrote:
It short-circuits and there's no backtracking? That's odd. Seems
like that should be stated in the docs somewhere, since that's how
most people expect an FSA to work.
I'm expanding the docs now, even as I incorporate people's suggestions.
In
On Dec 15, 2004, at 2:17 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
Ovid and I were getting fed up with the horrible DFA::Simple
module, so I wrote a new module, DFA::StateMachine, to take
its place in our work.
Cool.
But I'm no computer scientist, so I'm not even sure whether
the name is right or if the module
16 matches
Mail list logo
