Re: [sigc] Renaming nil

[Régis Duchesne <hpreg vmware com>]

Martin,

Thanks for your reply.

> 1) I think for the 2.0 branch the rename should be done conditionally.
> 2) 'none' is fine and probably closer to the actual meaning of the 
> definition than 'empty'.

Will do both. What should I do for the inline documentation though? It 
refers to 'nil' in many places. Should I just replace all occurences of 
'nil' in the doc with 'nil (none if using an Objective-C compiler)'? Or 
should I just ditch any reference to 'nil' in the doc? After all, no 
client of the library should explicitly refer to 'nil', so why document it?

> 3) I don't know any reason why it should not be binary compatible.

Me neither. Ater closer inspection of the code, it seems that:

o The sigc::nil type is completely opaque (it is declared but not defined).

o It is just used as a placeholder for the compiler to be happy and have 
a constant number of arguments in templates.

o Other than that, there are no references to it (in particular nobody 
ever compare types using sigc::nil).

Thanks,
--
hpreg