[sigc] 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 09:23 schrieb(en) martin-ml hippogriff de:
> Am 14.10.2003 um 21:41 Uhr haben Sie geschrieben:
> > martin-ml hippogriff de writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > This statement makes me curious. I've looked in the
> > archives, but only found the announcement of 1.9.7 which
> > doesn't really help. Checked out libsigc++2, but NEWS is
> > empty. Do you have the time to compile a list?
>
> I will. However, only as soon as I have Internet at home since I can't
> write it by heart. (I've moved to another city so this may still take
> a
> few days, depending on the speed of our telephone company...)

I'm online! Looking through my local archive I can see what you mean:
I left out the list of changes from libsigc++-1.2 in the announcement
of libsigc++-1.9.7 in favour of a ChangeLog summary.

I repost the list from the libsigc++-1.9.6 announcement and will
drop it in the NEWS file in cvs:

  - No need to specify the number of arguments in signal definitions.
  - Connection of any compatible (=implicitly convertable) functor
   to a signal.
  - Implicit type conversions of parameters during signal emission.
  - Lambda adaptor for complete restructuring of functor parameter
   lists in one line (subject to changes).
  - Signal has a fully featured stl style list interface.
  - A convinient accumulator API (replacing the old marshaller API).
  - Removal of unnecessary memory management functionality.
  - Lightweight class "trackable" for use as base class of your
   class hierarchy replaces class "Object".

Please tell me if something is not understandable or if there are
better words for it.

> > Small changes in the interface? Better performance, less > overhead?
>
> Rewritten from scratch making excessive use of c++ templates. Visible
> advantages affect the interface.
> Performance is more or less the same; probably +/-10% depending on the
> system. Slightly less memory consumption. If you are used to template
> code of that kind the structure and the code is clearer than in
> libsigc++-1.x.

Regards,

  Martin