Boost logo

Boost :

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-04-10 08:45:16

--- In boost_at_y..., jk_at_s... wrote:
> 9 Apr 2001 19:16:12 +0400 Kostya Altukhov wrote:
> >I think in C++ callbacks to member functions are far more important
> >than callbacks to free functions. I find it a little bit strange
for C++
> >callback library not to support callbacks to member functions.
> It is easy to produce fuction object from member function with
> >Talking about callbacks, what I really would like to be a part of
> >is libsigc++. Unfortunately it does not seem to be possible because
> I don't think that libsigc++ is very good, unless I'm missing
> because it allows to call back into freestanding function only, not
> arbitrary function object. It is possible to register callback into
> function with the pointer to object, but this possibility is
intrusive - it
> requires to derive object from SigC::Object. It is not good IMO.

I'd suggest taking another look at libsigc++. It doesn't really have
the problems you're alluding to here. In any event, what's wanted is
a signals/slots mechanism for Boost which is a good idea even if
libsigc++ had the faults you suggest (i.e. the concept would still be
worth while, though a change to the implementation would be warranted
if you were correct about libsigc++ constraints on use). I think
that Boost will eventually have such a signals/slots library,
possibly built on any_function, or possibly a ground up
implementation. Check out the list archives for the lengthy
discussion we had on this topic several months ago.

Bill Kempf

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