1) That's not just some straw man. Unfortunately, that's an example from real life. I've maintained code that had a finite state machine to emulate function calls embedded in... Perl, which does function calls: that is, a general state machine calling another general state machine. The author maintained that adding the list of functions to be called (with different names) as a list instead of "recursive function calls" was somehow easier to understand. He was proud of how flexible and dynamic it was. He's one of many bad Perl coders I wish I'd never met. :-(
2) The machine is well defined. It's operation is not; it varies depending on the input, which is not specified. Is that specific enough for you?
In reply to Re^5: defining methods on the fly
by Anonymous Monk
in thread defining methods on the fly
by flogic
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |