Boost logo

Boost Users :

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-27 14:45:52

Doug Gregor wrote:
> At the C++ committee meeting in Lillehammer last April, I'd asked if
> there was any interest in a TR2 proposal for the Signals library, and
> got a positive response. I'll be collaborating with the libsigc++ folks
> to put together a proposal for the upcoming meeting, which will be
> discussed on the libsigc mailing list:

Are the TR2 discussions about signals going to be over in the libsigc++ forum ?
That might imbalance the proposal in my mind toward lisigc++ rather than Boost
Signals, and I hope that does not happen.

> We'll naturally be taking the good features from both libraries
> (tracking, combining, syntax, etc.) and tossing out the bad (*ahem*
> named slot groups)

I do not think that slot groups are bad. They provide an easy ordering mechanism
for signals. I would hate to see flexibility thrown out just because the
performance has not been optimized depending on whether or not any slot groups
are used for any given signal.

Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at