Re: [sigc] conditions in libsigc

[Paul Davis <paul linuxaudiosystems com>]

On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 11:38 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 19:54 +0300, Paul Pogonyshev wrote:
> > Murray Cumming wrote:
> > > I suggest that you try to distribute this in a separate library for now.
> > > I'm not sure that people will consider it worthwhile to introduce the
> > > extra concept into their code, but let's see if they like it.
> > 
> > It's pointless.  I will never convince Gtkmm people to use another library
> > and conditions only make sense when they are built-in in the GUI classes.
> 
> It sounds like you are suggesting a huge addition of API. For instance,
> several new objects for every property. That's certainly not worth the
> small gain.
> 
> If you can't make this generic then it doesn't seem worthwhile. If you
> can make it generic then you can put it in a separate library, and
> that's the best way to keep it generic and allow it to mature.
> 
> > The only alternative I can see is to build low-level functionality in
> > Glibmm instead of sigc, but sigc is a more logical place since conditions
> > only depend on signals presence.
> > 
> > Is your decision final?
> 
> I'm not sure what you would like to put in glibmm or libsigc++. You've
> just said that it must be in gtkmm. But feel free to try to persuade me
> with a patch. Also, I'm not the only libsigc++ maintainer.

i am with murray on this one.

for every 2 cases where the API that has been outlined would be useful,
i can come up with 1 case where the "condition" would be too complex to
be usefully expressed with the API. so is it useful? yes. is it worth
adding a lot of stuff to an already substantial API to support this
particular subset of cases? i don't think so.

--p