Re: [sigc] Re: [Boost-users] Signals & Slots

["Murray Cumming" <murrayc murrayc com>]

> Very simple explanation here: my comments were about libsigc++ 1.2.

It would be best for us to ignore them then. The differences are quite large.

> I've glanced briefly at libstdc++ 2

For the record, Doug almost certainly means "libsigc++" instead of
"libstdc++".

> and was pleasantly surprised. I'd
> like to look into it further, but do not have the time now. I've been
> saying for a while that the Signals interface is not ready for
> standardization because we only had the one implementation (in Boost)
> and that it was not solid enough for standardization. However, with
> libstdc++ 2 adopting a similar interface, we might be able to converge
> on a single, solid interface for Signals & Slots within the C++
> Standard Library. Library Technical Report 2 is open for submissions,
> and signals & slots have been on the wish list since the beginning...
>
> In any case, a thread titled "Boost Signals & Slots vs. libsigc++" is
> treading on dangerous territory :)

I doubt that Boost Signals and libsigc++ 2 are significantly different.

A comparison should probably start by looking at the application code
needed to
1. Create a signal
2. Connect a slot (callback function) to a signal.
  2.2 For a member method.
  2.3 For a non-member or static function.
3. Disconnect a slot.
4. Bind an extra parameter, so that e.g. a slot with 4 parameters can be
used with a signal with 3 parameters. I don't personally find the more
complex adaptors interesting.

Please do try to warn us if Boost Signals seems near to being approved. We
would like to try porting gtkmm to it then.

Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com