On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 12:24:19AM +0100,
Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com> wrote
a message of 50 lines which said:
Table-described state machines can in fact be machine- readable if
they are designed to be.
Nobody ever said the opposite. Cosmogol is very close from a
table-described state machine, by the way, although the syntax is very
different from a typical table but a table, or a Comogol description
are both just a list of tuples (current-state, transition,
next-state).
Now, you might not *like* to write programs that recognize ascii-art
cells and find in them things like input names, new state names,
conditionals, actions, and side-effects.
Indeed. I challenge you to write a parser for the state machines of
RFC
4006 :-) specially with the RFC headers and footers.
We certainly could imagine a more table-like formal syntax with
delimiters like:
OPEN | Close it | CLOSED
CLOSED | Open it | OPEN
OPEN | Blow it out"| GONE
(or TeX's & sign)
or with fixed-size cells like RFC 4006 attempts to do.
Do you find it better?