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

On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 09:32, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 20:32 -0500, Carl Nygard wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 14:09, Doug Gregor wrote:
> > > On Nov 18, 2004, at 1:10 PM, Murray Cumming 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:
> Well done.
> But it needs several corrections:
> 0. Please call libsigc++ "libsigc++" rather "than "SigC++".

> 1. Shulze -> Schulze.
done. Sorry Martin.

> 2. libsigc++2 uses sigc::signal<>, not sigc::signal[1/2/3/4/5]<>.

Yup, and Boost.Signal has signal<void (float, string)> notation as
well.  I was trying to keep the examples as identical as possible to
show commonalities, but I'll make a note.

> 3. Signals with return values, with multiple handlers, seems like a more
> advanced issue that should be mentioned at the end.

The organization could possibly use some work, but I tried to keep
features related to each component of the system, rather than jump
around.  I think the commentary on Brandmeyer's example code will
provide the quick overview you wanted, and perhaps that should come
first in the document.

> 4. I have no idea what this does in your example:
> "sig.slots().push_front()".
> You can just use connect() again for a second slot. And you certainly
> shouldn't need to use it again for every slot after already using
> connect().

I was trying to illustrate the differences between Boost.Signals
grouping feature, and the ability of libsigc++ to order and reorder
slots.  So the example is how to insert a new slot higher in the call

If that's not the right way for libsigc++ to do it, then let me know. 
Like I said, I have not compiled (yet) any of the examples.
> 5. I can't find a mention of member method handlers. I would prefer that
> the simple stuff that I mentioned was dealt with first.

Only given discussion, no real example code.  I'm assuming discussion in
the example code, but I'll add a code snippet.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]