Boost logo

Boost Users :

From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-26 16:54:19


On Monday 26 February 2007 16:19 pm, you wrote:
> I'm implementing a more feature-full slot class with some of the things
> that have been discussed recently. In particular, it is templated only
> on signature. It uses a templated constructor to store the slot
> function in a pimpl object that is templated by both signature and slot
> function type. So now I'm about to rip out the SlotFunction parameter
> everywhere from thread_safe_signals, as there no longer seems to be any
> need for it. I feel like I might be overlooking something though. Is
> there any reason to keep it?

After a little more reflection, it seems what I have done to get rid of the
SlotFunction template parameter from the slot class has pretty much the
same effects as if I just hard-coded the SlotFunction to be
boost::functionN. So my question is: what is the point of having the
SlotFunction be parametrizable, and are we going to miss it?

-- 
Frank



Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net