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

From: Frank Mori Hess (fmhess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-24 11:18:59

On Saturday 24 February 2007 10:10 am, Timmo Stange wrote:
> We should also keep in mind what the tracking will be used for mostly.
> I think this is in order of importance:
> 1. tracking of objects for member function slots
> 2. tracking of parameters directly
> 3. tracking of signals as slots
> 4. tracking of indirectly related objects
>
> If that is close to reality, shifting to explicit tracking is a major
> change. Cases 1 and 2 are handled quite well with the implicit tracking.
> Case 3 involves some acrobatics in the implementation 

I wasn't planning on dropping support for automatic tracking of signals, I 
don't see that dropping it would make things any less confusing for the 
user.

> and case 4 leads 
> to an obscure syntax. On the other hand, all cases will result in two
> or more statements with explicit tracking. I find it difficult to favor
> one or the other here.

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

is only 1 statement.  True, it's a more complicated expression than

signal.connect(f, boost::signals::track(p)));

-- 
Frank