From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (alexy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-04-10 10:22:39
Nathan Myers <ncm_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 07:17:52AM -0000, Karl Nelson wrote:
> > This letter isn't meant as a put down, but rather to inform
> > that there are far more issues than brought up here. If boost
> > is really serious about getting a signal slot system, there
> > is a huge number of trade offs.
> Karl Nelson understands callback issues far, far better than anybody
> else I know. The Boost project cannot go wrong adopting his work or
> his advice.
> > Libsigc++ was written
> > with a lot of portablity, 2.5 times the callbacks, several entire
> > adaptor sets you don't even have. Further, libsigc++ was
> > optimizing for binary size and memory size at the expense
> > of [source] code size.
> The tradeoffs described above are exactly what we encourage for Boost.
But libsigc++ also has one requirement which wasn't mentioned so far, and
which makes it unacceptable for use in many cases. From libsigc++ API
In order for a signal to be connected to object, the object must have Object
somewhere in its inheritence tree.
class virtual Object
That was the main reason which forced us not to use libsigc++ and to develop
our own version of signal/slot system :) some times ago.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk