Re: [sigc] Forward declaration of signal.h
- From: Martin Schulze <martin-ml hippogriff de>
- To: Jari Petter Sundell <jaris student matnat uio no>
- Cc: libsigc-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: [sigc] Forward declaration of signal.h
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 22:28:31 +0200
Don't forget that bug report. My priority lies on the compiler problems
and on the documentation.
Regards,
Martin
Am 12.08.2004 15:29:18 schrieb(en) Jari Petter Sundell:
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. (And perhaps in a few headers that can't avoid
it)
You will get errors that anyone resonably competent can figure out.
(It
will afterall complain about the lack of sigc::* stuff) Nothing will
force
you to use the forward declaring headers.
> I guess it could be useful if you have sigc classes only in your
protected
> or private API, but the whole point of libsigc++ is that it allows
public
> communication between objects.
Forward declaring the classes does not hinder communication. Besides,
it's
quite the opposite. It is in the hidden parts of your API that you
can
skip including the sigc headers. But in the headers your user will be
using, you cannot expect him to have already included the required
sigc
headers.
Rakshasa
_______________________________________________
libsigc-list mailing list
libsigc-list gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/libsigc-list
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]