Re: [Boost-users] [Signals] Proposal effort for TR2

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:
> 
> 	http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/libsigc-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.