On Monday, December 05, 2011 09:13:57 Johannes Pfau wrote: > Andrej Mitrovic wrote: > >On 12/3/11, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote: > >> If you have a considerably better proposal for std.signals > > > >Johannes Pfau made an updated one, not me. And I'd rather use it for a > >while and hack in new features when necessary and debug it properly > >than shove it into phobos and make it another DOA module that nobody > >uses. > > It's not really ready for phobos. Probably better than the current > std.signals, but still not ready. The API seems to be ok, but can be > extended with some ideas from boost.signals2 and the implementation > should be replaced with boost.signals2 code as well. > When I find some time I might clean it up and propose it for phobos, > but don't hold your breath.
I've never used std.signals, so I don't really know how good it is, but if std.signals is not up to snuff, then it should be replaced with something which is. So, if someone is willing to champion that effort, then that would be great, but unless someone does so, std.signals is likely to stay just as it is. But ideally, if std.signals is poor, it should be replaced with something better. - Jonathan M Davis
