Subject: Re: [boost] Synapse library review starts today December 2
From: Nat Goodspeed (nat_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-12-02 11:37:30
On Dec 2, 2016 9:19 AM, "Edward Diener" <eldiener_at_[hidden]> wrote:
I encourage all programmers with an interest or knowledge of signal/slot
processing to be part of the review or discussion of the Synapse library as
your time permits.
I looked through the first page of the linked documentation, and I'm
confused about how this is better than Boost.Signals2. The documentation
uses the word "non-intrusive" a number of times without clarifying in what
sense the existing Signals library is "intrusive."
I'm not arguing against Synapse - I'm willing to stipulate that it
addresses some use cases better than Signals2. But certainly if it IS
accepted, the documentation needed to be really clear, right up front, what
is the distinction, why the Boost umbrella contains two different libraries
with the same purpose, and - most importantly - how a potential user would
choose between them.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk