From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-04-10 08:45:16
--- In boost_at_y..., jk_at_s... wrote:
> 9 Apr 2001 19:16:12 +0400 Kostya Altukhov wrote:
> >I think in C++ callbacks to member functions are far more important
> >than callbacks to free functions. I find it a little bit strange
for C++
> >callback library not to support callbacks to member functions.
>
> It is easy to produce fuction object from member function with
binders.
>
> >Talking about callbacks, what I really would like to be a part of
boost
> >is libsigc++. Unfortunately it does not seem to be possible because
>
> I don't think that libsigc++ is very good, unless I'm missing
something,
> because it allows to call back into freestanding function only, not
into
> arbitrary function object. It is possible to register callback into
member
> function with the pointer to object, but this possibility is
intrusive - it
> requires to derive object from SigC::Object. It is not good IMO.
I'd suggest taking another look at libsigc++. It doesn't really have
the problems you're alluding to here. In any event, what's wanted is
a signals/slots mechanism for Boost which is a good idea even if
libsigc++ had the faults you suggest (i.e. the concept would still be
worth while, though a change to the implementation would be warranted
if you were correct about libsigc++ constraints on use). I think
that Boost will eventually have such a signals/slots library,
possibly built on any_function, or possibly a ground up
implementation. Check out the list archives for the lengthy
discussion we had on this topic several months ago.
Bill Kempf