From: Simon Buchan (simon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-23 04:58:13
Martin Bonner wrote:
> ----Original Message----
> From: Simon Buchan [mailto:simon_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: 23 September 2005 09:40
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Signals and Qt
>
>
>>Vladimir Prus wrote:
>
>
>>>? Do you mean that the current situation is optimal, and any
>>>attempts on improving it are just wasting time?
>>>
>>>- Volodya
>>>
>>
>>Are you serious? You're writing a library! You think someone might use
>>it with Qt! Yes, dumbass, you SHOULD do that! Take a look at some of
>>the boost headers (esp. functional, lambda, bind) and THEN bitch
>>about how hard it is to write a library.
>>If it hurts your poor fingers (or eyes), put this somewhere useful
>>(ie. detail namespace):
>>namespace whatever = ::boost::BOOST_SIGNALS_NAMESPACE;
>
>
> Are *you* serious? Volodya ask if you think the current situation is
> optimal, and you insult him.
>
> I don't see how you post adds to the discussion.
Ok, yes, that _was_ rude. Sorry, Vladimir.
I just meant that in library writing, you have bigger worries than an
ugly namespace id, and it's easily workaround-able. Not only that, but
quite frankly, as long as Qt continues to use the preproccesser with
non-unique macro names, yes, I do think Boost.Signals is damn near
optimal. Anyone else would have just said "sorry, but you're screwed".