Ragel doesn't have any native support for selective reception. It seems
to me it could be faked by re-ording input as it is processed, or maybe
even chaining together two state machines. You would need that if you
wanted to go from erlang -> ragel, but is it not the reverse you are after?
-Adrian
On 12-10-11 11:05 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
Hello Adrian and Others,
On the Erlang list I asked what they thought about a ragel backend. One
answer I got was
The thing it (ragel) lacks that Erlang has, is selective message
reception.
This allows Erlang to ignore a message in its inbox, and keep waiting
for the desired message. In coordination problems, this is a great
way to avoid complexity explosion.
I gave a talk about that a while ago:
http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Death-by-Accidental-Complexity
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Death-by-Accidental-Complexity&usg=AFQjCNGPS4RkGk8l3Z0uEd8oKLvcu826mA>
[8th message by Ulf Wiger here
http://groups.google.com/group/erlang-programming/browse_thread/thread/f35ae73f59bd0835
]
So I guess the question is "Whats the standard 'design-pattern' to
ignore everything-except-A and stay put?"
_______________________________________________
ragel-users mailing list
ragel-users@complang.org
http://www.complang.org/mailman/listinfo/ragel-users
_______________________________________________
ragel-users mailing list
ragel-users@complang.org
http://www.complang.org/mailman/listinfo/ragel-users
