[sigc] Proposal for standardization in C++ Library TR2
- From: Doug Gregor <dgregor cs indiana edu>
- To: libsigc++ list <libsigc-list gnome org>
- Subject: [sigc] Proposal for standardization in C++ Library TR2
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:46:10 -0500
Hello,
Back in April, the C++ standards committee met in Lillehammer, Norway
to discuss extensions to the C++ language and library. The Library
Working Group portion of the committee decided to create a second
library technical report (called TR2) containing additional libraries
for C++. Technical reports are not official standards, but it is likely
that they will become standards and that vendors will implement them.
For reference, the list of proposals that became TR1 is here:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/
library_technical_report.html
I am the author of another signals & slots library (Boost.Signals),
which shares much of its interface with libsigc++ 2. At the
aforementioned committee meeting I asked if there was any interest in
including signals & slots in TR2 and receiving and overwhelmingly
positive response.
I propose that the developers of libsigc++ 2 and Boost.Signals
collaboratively write a proposal to include signals & slots
functionality in TR2. The deadline for this proposal will be
mid-September, before the next C++ committee meeting. I've been through
the proposal process and regularly attend committee meetings, and I can
confidently say that work on this proposal will be gladly accepted by
the library working group for TR2.
We've discussed this previously, but I think it's time to buckle down
and get it done. Our previous discussions resulted in a comparison
between the current states of the libraries, here:
http://www.3sinc.com/opensource/boost.bind-vs-sigc2.html
We can definitely start by writing up the common parts of the
interfaces (which should be quite large!) and then hammer out the
little details in the end. The proposal will likely differ slightly
from both libraries, but that's fine. However, we should avoid major
deviations from existing, working code because those tend to make
committees nervous.
What say you?
Thanks,
Doug
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]