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

2005-07-30 Thread Paul Davis
 std::event
 std::slot
 std::connection
 std::trackable

slot? why would anyone call it a slot? the object in question is a
closure designed to handle the event. i have never been able to
understand the slot name.



___
libsigc-list mailing list
libsigc-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/libsigc-list


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

2005-07-25 Thread Carl Nygard
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

___
libsigc-list mailing list
libsigc-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/libsigc-list