Re: [sigc] Forward declaration of signal.h

[Martin Schulze <martin-ml hippogriff de>]

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