Re: [Boost-users] [signals] slot with no SlotFunction template parameter

From: Timmo Stange (ts_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-26 17:58:40

Frank Mori Hess wrote:

> 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?

There's more than one implementation for generalized callbacks and while
Boost.Function has the tr1 interface, it will not necessarily be the
implementation used by a signal client. Mixing different implementations
involves a performance and memory usage penalty, so I would keep it
somewhere at the end of each parameter list, defaulting to
Boost.Function at least as a transition helper until there is a
std::function. As you say yourself: it's unproblematic implementation-
wise.

Regards

Timmo Stange