Re: [boost] SUBMISSION: Signal/slot library

From: Joseph Davis (joseph.davis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-04-09 07:31:56

Tomasz Kowalczyk wrote:

> Joseph Davis wrote:
> >
> > I have been using the Qt Signal/Slot mechanism for about a year, and I find it to
> > be a practical idiom.  I have not used the libsigc version (we use Qt), but I did
> > explore the links mentioned in this thread.  Reading this also makes me wonder
> > whether or not the proposed submission would fill a roll in the boost library.  If
> > the code is better, more portable, more "open", it certainly might.
>
> This is exactly what I wanted to hear. Now my questions are:
>
> What needs to be made better ?
> What part do you think is not portable ?
> What aspects should be more "open" ?
>

I'm sorry, but I don't feel qualified to answer these questions.  I really don't have any
first hand knowledge of libsigc++.  The Qt implementation seems fine for us.  The
advantages touted on the libsigc++ web page don't really have any practical impact on
what we are doing..

So, assuming we stick with Qt as our widget framework, another signal/slot library is
only relevant if we need a "better" signal/slot mechanism in other parts of our design.
The only part of the design that seems to be a candidate is the Model-View-Controller
design, and in this regard signal/slot seems to us to be limited as a small role player
at best.

I suppose the better questions is:

Does signal/slot play a useful role in areas other than GUI widget design?

If not, then it seems most of us would select a GUI widget design with a signal/slot
mechanism and use it.  This assumes of course that boost continues to confine itself to
useful extensions of STL using pure ANSI C++, and not venture into GUI widget packages.