On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 17:51 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 10:40 -0600, Jonathon Jongsma wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 14:15 +0000, Chris Vine wrote: > > > > > > It is probably better simply to disallow copying of signals, rather > > > than do shallow copies resulting in the curious effects you mention. I > > > took that line when writing some signal/slot classes of my own for use > > > where libsigc++ was not suitable because it is not thread safe. (But > > > these also happen to implement trackability at the signal level.) > > > > I think this would be my preferred solution as well, though I haven't > > really considered what all the effects of that would be. In any case, I > > don't think the behavior is likely to change in the near future, so I > > just wanted people to be aware of the issue. > > If you file a bug then we can fix it when we do ABI breaks for gtkmm 3 > eventually. Of course, I'd rather have a new C++ standard real soon that > let us use its signals instead. Not likely though.
Bug filed: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=611941 Chris, feel free to add your thoughts there as well, as you clearly understand the internals of sigc++ more than I do (I only glanced at the internals briefly after discovering this behavior). -- Jonathon Jongsma <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
