Neil Cerutti wrote: > Going back to the stack machine question, and using it as an > example: Assume you design your program as a state machine. > Wouldn't it be easier to implement in a (hypothetical) > state-machine-based programming language than in a procedural > one? I think John was insinuating that a state-machine is more > like an object than it is like a procedure.
I think at this point, I should stop questioning and just learn for a while. But regarding state machines, I had probably written a few in C the past before really understanding that it was a state machine. Much later I grasped state machines from digital logic. Then it became much clearer how to use them as a tool and to code them intentionally. Once I have written a state table, I can implement using flip-flops and gates or in C as either a state variable and a switch statement or something table driven. The switch code can be written as fast as I can read through the state table. That's the easiest implementation, but the least easy to change later unless it's fairly small. I will be eager to see how to do this in Python. I have found the comments in response to my doubts about OOP very encouraging. I will do some learning, and come back when I have more Python specific problems... Thanks for the input! -- Good day! ________________________________________ Christopher R. Carlen Principal Laser&Electronics Technologist Sandia National Laboratories CA USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] NOTE, delete texts: "RemoveThis" and "BOGUS" from email address to reply. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
