Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jared McIntyre (jmcintyre_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-22 17:57:11

Johan Torp <johan.torp <at>> writes:

> >Looks good to me. You might consider a few minor additions:
> >
> > - A copy constructor for signalling_value, that just copies the
> >underlying value
> > - A copy assignment operator for signalling_value, that just
> >copies the underlying value
> Both should definitely be there.
> > - A conversion to const T& (same functionality as get)
> > - An assignment operator that takes a const T& (same functionality
> >as set)
> I think I prefer forcing users to be specific about what they do, in
> this case to point out that they are not just setting a value but also
> possibly signalling receivers. On the other hand, enabling these two
> features would allow users to treat this class as a regular value in
> generic programming. Which do you think is better?

I'd rather have the overloads. I was actually playing around with something
similar recently, and that is how I was doing it. As for explicitly telling
the user that they will be sending a message with the set call, I don't think
set really tells you anymore as a user than = about how messaging is occurring.
Further, as a setter of a value, I rarely care whether an event will be sent or
not. I only care about that when I am also the receiver of the message, but at
that point I should already know they are tied together, since I hooked into the

Jared McIntyre

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