On Mar 9, 2012, at 12:48 PM, Rüdiger Asche wrote: > it's in part a matter of taste which "final" form one prefers
No. Once again: it's a question of being able to measure the performance (space, time, temperature, energy) of various implementation of FSMs. It's not taste, it's quantifiable attributes. > I guess using your outline of define-fsm one could probably also find an > expansion that translates into my large transition function. Yes. ;; --- It is easy to design a macro for FSMs that also works for Moore and Meealy machines so that you can have whatever effects you want baked into transitions. You did '311' so use it. Think high-level, not replacement of identifiers with numbers. Use the force, I am sorry I am out of time -- Matthias ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
