Re: [Boost-users] Signals & Slots

From: Hagen Möbius (hagen.moebius_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-18 12:10:47

Foster, Gareth wrote:

>Doug,
>
>This is what murray had to say on the GTKmm list (future correspondance, if
>any, to be on the libsigc++ list), it's a very pleasing response I'm sure
>you will agree.
>
>Perhaps you could qualify you last statement though, that one seems to have
>murray a little stumped.
>
>Cheers!
>
>Gaz
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Murray Cumming [mailto:murrayc_at_[hidden]] 
>Sent: 18 November 2004 09:50
>To: Foster, Gareth
>Cc: 'gtkmm-list_at_[hidden]'; libsigc-list_at_[hidden]
>Subject: Re: [Boost Signals & Slots] Vs [libsigc++]
>
>
>Questions comparing boost::signal to libsigc++ belong on the libsigc++
>mailing list. I'm CCing it.
>
>boost::signal was developer in cooperation with Karl Nelson, the main
>original libsigc++ developer. Also, the libsigc++ 2 API was redesigned to
>be as much like boost::signal as possible, so that gtkmm can easily switch
>to boost::signal if it becomes an API-stable dependency or it is added to
>the C++ Standard Library. gtkmm has a long-standing policy of not
>reimplementing things when we can just reuse them.
>
>This part makes no sense to me. It would have to be explained properly
>before we could comment:
>"
>Basically, libsigc++ is a monolithic entity covering single and
>multiple-target callbacks, slots, and slot binding, Signals tackles
>only the multiple-target callbacks, relying on other Boost libraries
>(especially Function and Signals) to do most of the work, so it
>integrates cleanly with the rest of Boost.
>"
>
>Murray
>  
>
Indeed more than I would have expected from Murray. ;)

But then again, I didn't know that sigc++-2.0 was designed to be 
"interface-compatible" to boost. A very good response then :)

Hagen.