Aaron Griffin wrote:
[snip]
I like:
std::source
std::sink
std::channel
std::trackable
trackable never made sense to me... in essence it's a base class which
allows it to auto-disconnect on the dtor, correct? why not
std::auto_disconnect or something like that? (just thinking out loud
here
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:08:32 +0200
From: "Ames Andreas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [sigc] Proposal for standardization in C++ Library TR2
To:
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello,
Douglas Gregor wrote:
On 7/30/05, Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
I agree - sl
> 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
li
Carl Nygard wrote:
[snip]
I've made my thoughts known on this. The only problem I have with
publisher/subscriber is that the class (formerly known as Slot)
std::subscriber isn't *really* the subscriber, it's just a link to the
actual subscriber. Hence the naming of std::proxy_fun as the Slot
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:20:51 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote
> > There's the "trackable" class, which could potentially get a different
> > name, but it doesn't have to. Signal, slot, and connection are the big
> > ones.
> >
> > Murray, Carl: How do you feel about this terminology?
>
> I still fav
