Re: Signal/slot library

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (alexy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-04-10 13:15:50

Karl Nelson <kenelson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hmm, did you ask about this on the mailing list?

No, I didn't. Mostly because there were so many references to the necessity
of derivation from SigC::Object in the documentation that I considered it to
be true :).

> It might
> have saved you a lot of coding.
>

Not really. Our home-grown signals/slots system is about 700 lines of code.
The missed (in comparison with libsigc++) functionality is a support for
signals with 2 and more arguments. That probably makes the main difference
in sizes. Signals with only one argument are sufficient for us because we
use event objects anyway :).

As you noted before, there are many issues on the topic which need to be
resolved and which can be resolved in many ways. Our particular
implementation went in a different way (and were built at all) because the
points we considered to be important were different.

And I do agree that libsigc++ is a very good piece of work and can be the
source of many ideas, knowledge and experience which we can hardly get from
anywhere else.

--Alexy