[papaf]

I am not a fan of the hoverbear state machine pattern. I find that it makes simple things complicated and hard things impossible. I used it and I had problems with:

  - Reusing code between states.
  - Making callbacks to other APIs during state changes.

I ended up using the standard state pattern described here: https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch17-03-oo-design-patterns.ht...

The state pattern is not considered to be idiomatic Rust, but in my experience it works better and is very flexible.

The state pattern has the downside that the type system does not enforce which state changes are allowed.

[jstrong]

for reusing code between states, did you try impl blocks that are generic over the state type parameter?

for

    struct State<T> { state: T }

with possible states

    struct A { id: Uuid }
    struct B { id: Uuid }

use a trait

    trait HasId {
        fn id_mut(&mut self) -> &mut Uuid;
    }

now you can impl over both A and B

    impl<T: HasId> for State<T> {
        fn new_id(&mut self) { *self.state.id_mut() = Uuid::new_v4() }
    }

simplistic example but enough to communicate the idea hopefully.

generally, macros makes this kind of thing ergonomic so you can generate the trait implementations and so on. otherwise it's a lot of typing.

don't understand what you mean about making callbacks to other APIs during transitions.

[papaf]

I did not try that -- its a cool technique. Thanks for taking the time to share it.