Re: [gtkmm] Doing a 'catch-code' library for the propesed functionality cuts in SigC++

[Murray Cumming <murrayc usa net>]

Martin, it would be easier if you just replied in one email instead of
spreading your arguments across 3 separate replies.

On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 21:22, Martin Schulze wrote:
> - I would pack all existing adaptors into the extra lib.

That's a nice idea, but people really _will_ complain if we remove
bind() from libsigc++. It definitely is used heavily.

Incidentally, at the moment I am _thinking_ of keeping retype_return()
so that it can be used to implement hide_return(). And I _might_ keep
retype() just so that because they are related. So just convert() would
be removed in addition to what I've already taken out. It's not as much
as I'd like, but it's better than coding a new hide_return().

> - The final plan should be to reintegrate the adaptors into the libsigc++
>    main library when it finally will become more maintainable.

Fair enough.
-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net
www.murrayc.com