Re: [sigc] Forward declaration of signal.h

["Murray Cumming" <murrayc murrayc com>]

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Murray Cumming wrote:
>
>> But in most cases people would still need to include the real header to
>> actually use the API, so I don't see how it could make a big difference,
>> though it would confuse users of your API who would get strange compiler
>> errors.
>
> Instead of having signal.h included X times, it will only be included once
> in the source file.

Surely _most_ of that is avoided already by the use of simple header guards?

I can imagine that this might create some efficiencies in some cases, and
some people would like that despite the difficulties it introduces. After
all the iosfwd header must exist for a reason. Like Martin says, it seems
like an acceptable patch.

I would put that in libsigc++ 2.2 or whatever major version comes next
(Such a version would not need to break ABI, though it would have to wait
for the GNOME 2.10 development cycle in a couple of months' time.). But
I'm not the libsigc++ maintainer.


Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com