From: Johan Torp (johan.torp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-21 11:31:33
>Looks good to me. You might consider a few minor additions:
>
> - A copy constructor for signalling_value, that just copies the
>underlying value
> - A copy assignment operator for signalling_value, that just
>copies the underlying value
Both should definitely be there.
> - A conversion to const T& (same functionality as get)
> - An assignment operator that takes a const T& (same functionality
>as set)
I think I prefer forcing users to be specific about what they do, in
this case to point out that they are not just setting a value but also
possibly signalling receivers. On the other hand, enabling these two
features would allow users to treat this class as a regular value in
generic programming. Which do you think is better?
>> 4. Do you have a better naming suggestion?
>Did you consider "observable_value"? Or even just "observable"?
I did, but I wanted to point out that I was using signals and slots.
Observable would be great if it was in the namespace boost::signals.
Do you think this class might be useful enough to be added to boost
slots and signals?
Best Regards, Johan Torp