From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-24 12:57:15
On Thursday 24 April 2003 01:28 pm, Nicolas Fleury wrote:
> So I ask myself if boost::signals should have a mechanism to use order
> of connection, even if it's more heavy. Maybe just as a global option
> for all signals? Preprocessor option? Strategy or policy? Of course,
> I don't know the code and if it has been already been discussed, I just
> flag the nice-to-have need for reproduceable results across platforms.
Yes, it would be very nice to have the ability to rely on the connection
order. I wouldn't want it to be a preprocessor option (too messy), although I
have considered a policy-based solution. The policy would dictate the
underlying storage mechanism, and therefore the ordering semantics. I'm just
leary of policy-based designs, because first we give a name to something
("signal") but we then let its semantics vary wildly without changing its
syntax; in this case, the changes to the semantics are very subtle, and it
would be very easy to forget that signal A follows connection order whereas
signal B does not.
I think if I were to go the policy-based route, I would want to introduce new
names. say, publisher/subscriber for the complete unordered versions,
delegates for connection-ordered versions, etc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk