Re: [sigc] Proposal for standardization in C++ Library TR2

Murray Cumming wrote:
 > Thanks for your input! "Signals" definitely does have that confusion
 > factor with those Unixy signals, whereas "event" and "handler" are
 > common terminology for this sort of thing.
I'm disappointed we can't have std::signal (What's using that), but for
now event/handler seems to be the best alternative.
Windows coders will be convinced that events are for interprocess
communication and/or that they all go into a central queue, but they are
easily confused.

WFIW (being a Windows programmer and not a native English speaker and all), I think 'event' is the best. It is a simple word, a word that non-native speakers will learn fairly soon when learning English (unlike 'slot', although of course people who learn English eg in Vegas will soon learn about 'slot machines' :) ). Also, the relation between 'signal' (being a generic 'event' sort of thing) and 'slot' (being a groove in something according to Webster) is not one-on-one IMO. Using 'event' and 'event_handler' would make it absolutely clear that the two are a pair. About confusing 'event' with X events or COM events or any other type of events, the same goes for 'signal' and Unix signals. And I also think that every term one could come up with is already used by some implementation of a signalling framework ('delegate' in .net, 'subject' and 'observer' in the GoF pattern, ...).



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]