Re: [Boost-users] [signals] thread-safe post-disconnect() cleanup

From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-23 17:01:13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 23 February 2007 16:50 pm, Timmo Stange wrote:
> Frank Mori Hess wrote:
> > However, my way also allows track() to be called an arbitrary number
> > of times before connecting the slot.  How would multiple tracked
> > objects be handled with a track(p).connect()/.connect_to() syntax?
>
> I suppose track() would return a reference to the slot_type, so that
> you could do:
>
> signal_type::slot_type( f, p1.get(), p2.get() ).track( p1 ).track( p2
> ).connect_to(...);

Ah, yes.  track() has to return a reference to the slot for my suggestion

signal.connect(signal_type::slot_type( f, p.get() ).track( p ));

to work as well.

> Another question is if both alternatives should be provided, or if
> tracking should only work when you create a slot_type object explicitly.

I have no problem with only providing tracking support through 
slot::track().

> I'd also like to mention that you can effectively hide the tracking from
> the connection setup site with the original implementation. If you only
> provide a typedef for the functor you want to be used for the
> connection, visit_each can collect the information automatically (or
> at least in a way invisible to the connecting code).

I'm not following what you're saying here.  Can you give some kind of 
example for what you're suggesting?

- -- 
Frank
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF32Qp5vihyNWuA4URAnrrAJwJNzqb0zzQrBojAdK4SfT7L1+d/ACfYtIB
Cj8GatxyOXCgO7TBzdCpuu0=
=diYH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----