Re: [boost] libsigc++ inclusion (was Formal review request: Signals library)

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-27 08:53:02

From: "Karl Nelson" <kenelson_at_[hidden]>
> > What reasons have vanished?
>
> Because some the chief arguments seems to be included in this
> library being proposed.  The use of numbers after the signal
> names was one of the key complaints cited when I proposed sigc++
> to boost.  Obviously these arguments are dropped some place!?

Neither boost the library nor boost the community is a monolithic entity.
;-)

I suggested that the numbered variants of boost::function be provided as
well for link compatibility, with a non-numbered wrapper on top:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/message/10873

--
Peter Dimov
Multi Media Ltd.