Boost logo

Boost :

From: sipan_at_[hidden]
Date: 2000-04-09 20:35:40

--- In boost_at_[hidden], Joseph Davis <joseph.davis_at_i...> wrote:
> Tomasz Kowalczyk wrote:
> >
> > 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..

libsigc++ is faster, not associated with any GUI toolkit, and
does not require special preprocessor.

> I suppose the better questions is:
> Does signal/slot play a useful role in areas other than GUI widget
> design?

Yes. E.g. when you have multiple modules which have to communicate,
you have to implement your own message passing protocol or use
libsigc++ (or its analogs). The project I am working on is using
its own message scheduling and I can bet that result will be much
slower and more complex application then it could have been if we
were using libsigc++.

The problem is that libsigc++ is complex library. E.g it has its
own complete(almost?) collection of wrapper classes around POSIX

The question is, does high(or low, if you want) level stuff like
threads, sockets, serialization, signal/slot implementations should
be in "boost", which, as I understand, deals with more generic


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at