A little of coordination for Rosettacode

[Jos van Uden]

On 16-2-2013 3:34, bearophile wrote:
> A first revision, do you like the toString?
>
> http://codepad.org/qhH2XpMx
>

It's fine, but we need another write at the end of run otherwise the final state
doesn't get written.

> The modified code contains still an enum that gets converted to char and then to int.
I am not going to write code like that in my own "production code" :-)
>
> - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> To improve this type soup a bit I suggest to introduce one or more alias for the types of states, etc, like:
>
> alias State = char;
>

Good idea. I'll change that.

I'm still not happy with the TuringMachine creation although it looks
more organized than before.

I'm thinking about putting the definitions in xml, then have a parser
create an immutable TuringMachine that we can then pass to UTM. That
would also take care of the nested AA problem. The rules object can
then have a tuple or a struct.

BTW, the reason I used a class is that it forces you to instantiate through
the constructor.

If you use a class and write:

(new UTM().run()); // fails at compile time

If you use a struct and write:

UTM().run(); // fails at runtime