Re: [sigc] Re: [Boost-users] Signals & Slots

["Peter Dimov" <pdimov mmltd net>]

Carl Nygard wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 14:09, Doug Gregor wrote:
>
>> I'm not in a position to do this at the moment, although possibly in
>> the future. It would be *wonderful* if someone went off and studied
>> both libraries in-depth to make this comparison, especially if that
>> person was not intimately familiar with either library beforehand.
>>
>
> Available: http://www.3sinc.com/opensource/boost.bind-vs-sigc2.html
>
> Updates for code samples from Chris Vine and Jonathan Brandmeyer will
> be forthcoming.
>
> I could use some suggestions on how to incorporate common code into
> the code comparison tables.
>
> And of course, any other comments, flames, etc. will be welcome.  I'm
> only doing this as a service for keeping track of comments.  I'd like
> to see some of this stuff make it into the C++ standard library.

About:

[-ed I'd love this, as long as I didn't have to use all of Boost to get it].

in reference to Boost.Bind. You don't need all of Boost. boost::bind is 
reasonably self-contained. I see that a dependency on mpl::bool_ has crept 
up in boost/ref.hpp, but Bind does not need it, so it's excisable without 
much effort.

"Soon" (in a few years, once TR1 is implemented across the board) we'll 
hopefully be able to get 'bind' and 'function' by just including 
<functional>. This will also help Boost.Signals a bit since I suspect that 
nowadays most of the preprocessed code comes from boost::function.