From: Johan Torp (johan.torp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-23 09:12:17
Jared McIntyre <jmcintyre <at> dfsoftware.com> writes:
>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
Hmm, maybe you're right. I guess get and set should be removed and
Do you think this is general and useful enough to be included in boost
slots and signals?
Best Regards, Johan Torp
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk