RE: libsigc++2 in gtkmm-2.4? (was: Re: [gtkmm] ANNOUNCE: glibmm 2 .3.0)

[Murray Cumming Comneon com]

> From: martin-ml hippogriff de [mailto:martin-ml hippogriff de] 
> > However, personally, I don't look forward to telling people 
> to replace 
> > all their "SigC::slot"s with sigc::slot - I was thinking of 
> asking you 
> > to change that back. And so far I don't have a list of big 
> libsigc++2 
> > advantages to show people.
> 
> Well first of all sorry for answering this late.
> As to changing back to "SigC::Slot" in libsigc++2 I must say 
> that I would really prefer a compatibility header:

Yes, that would be OK if it can be done. We would have 
#ifndef LIBSIGC_DISABLE_DEPRECATED
Around the API.

> we changed 
> to small letters to match the c++ standard and increasing the 
> major version digit of
> libsigc++ should allow us to do this. (In fact, I clearly remember you
> stating that gtkmm-2.0 would have had small letters for 
> classes and namespaces if you had known this is the preferred 
> way of the standard by the time you took over maintainership.)

Yes. For instance, I will use lowercase for my dbus bindings.
 
> As for the advantages, I'm afraid I can't think of more than 
> is listed in the announce emails of libsigc++-1.9.x. 
> "Technologically superior" might be a proper term to sum it up.

We have to do a bit better than that.

Murray Cumming
www.murrayc.com
murrayc usa net