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

[Martin Schulze <martin-ml hippogriff de>]

Am 2003.10.15 09:18 schrieb(en) 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.

Okay. I will start working on such a header file the following weekend.

> > 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.

For the list you mean?
Or do you have a long wish list of features that you would like
to see implemented?

Regards,

  Martin