Re: [boost] [signal] performance

From: Jody Hagins (jody-boost-011304_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-22 15:19:16

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:32:45 -0500
Douglas Gregor <doug.gregor_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> For I long time I've wanted to have a signal that doesn't permit  
> named slots, so that we can replace the horrendous map<name,  
> list<slot> > data structure in named_slot_map into a simple  
> list<slot>. It even fits into the interface well: we would just add a 
> 
> partial specialization of signal<> like the following that uses the  
> simple, faster list<slot>-type interface.

Maybe what we need is a look at redesign that will provide all the
features that are in current use, while allowing users to use smaller
subsets of features.

It's easy to think I'm just throwing stones, but I'm really no trying to
do so.  I think Boost.Signals is an incredible tool.  However, it only
gets marginal use in my stuff because of performance.  I have,
essentially, rolled my own mini classes (and in some cases used the
FastDelegates lib), and only use Boost.Signals when I need all the
whiz-bang features.

If there were some other way...