From: Simon Buchan (simon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-23 04:58:13
Martin Bonner wrote:
> ----Original Message----
> From: Simon Buchan [mailto:simon_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: 23 September 2005 09:40
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Signals and Qt
>>Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>>? Do you mean that the current situation is optimal, and any
>>>attempts on improving it are just wasting time?
>>Are you serious? You're writing a library! You think someone might use
>>it with Qt! Yes, dumbass, you SHOULD do that! Take a look at some of
>>the boost headers (esp. functional, lambda, bind) and THEN bitch
>>about how hard it is to write a library.
>>If it hurts your poor fingers (or eyes), put this somewhere useful
>>(ie. detail namespace):
>>namespace whatever = ::boost::BOOST_SIGNALS_NAMESPACE;
> Are *you* serious? Volodya ask if you think the current situation is
> optimal, and you insult him.
> I don't see how you post adds to the discussion.
Ok, yes, that _was_ rude. Sorry, Vladimir.
I just meant that in library writing, you have bigger worries than an
ugly namespace id, and it's easily workaround-able. Not only that, but
quite frankly, as long as Qt continues to use the preproccesser with
non-unique macro names, yes, I do think Boost.Signals is damn near
optimal. Anyone else would have just said "sorry, but you're screwed".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk