Re: [sigc] Proposal for standardization in C++ Library TR2
- From: Carl Nygard <cjnygard verizon net>
- To: Doug Gregor <dgregor cs indiana edu>
- Cc: libsigc++ list <libsigc-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: [sigc] Proposal for standardization in C++ Library TR2
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:38:05 -0400
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 16:46 -0500, Doug Gregor wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Back in April, the C++ standards committee met in Lillehammer, Norway
> to discuss extensions to the C++ language and library. The Library
> Working Group portion of the committee decided to create a second
> library technical report (called TR2) containing additional libraries
> for C++. Technical reports are not official standards, but it is likely
> that they will become standards and that vendors will implement them.
> For reference, the list of proposals that became TR1 is here:
>
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/
> library_technical_report.html
>
> I am the author of another signals & slots library (Boost.Signals),
> which shares much of its interface with libsigc++ 2. At the
> aforementioned committee meeting I asked if there was any interest in
> including signals & slots in TR2 and receiving and overwhelmingly
> positive response.
>
> I propose that the developers of libsigc++ 2 and Boost.Signals
> collaboratively write a proposal to include signals & slots
> functionality in TR2. The deadline for this proposal will be
> mid-September, before the next C++ committee meeting. I've been through
> the proposal process and regularly attend committee meetings, and I can
> confidently say that work on this proposal will be gladly accepted by
> the library working group for TR2.
>
> We've discussed this previously, but I think it's time to buckle down
> and get it done. Our previous discussions resulted in a comparison
> between the current states of the libraries, here:
>
> http://www.3sinc.com/opensource/boost.bind-vs-sigc2.html
>
> We can definitely start by writing up the common parts of the
> interfaces (which should be quite large!) and then hammer out the
> little details in the end. The proposal will likely differ slightly
> from both libraries, but that's fine. However, we should avoid major
> deviations from existing, working code because those tend to make
> committees nervous.
>
> What say you?
Although I'm not an author of libsigc++2, I'd be interested in working
on this.
Regards,
Carl
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]