Doug Gregor wrote:
At the C++ committee meeting in Lillehammer last April, I'd asked if there was any interest in a TR2 proposal for the Signals library, and got a positive response. I'll be collaborating with the libsigc++ folks to put together a proposal for the upcoming meeting, which will be discussed on the libsigc mailing list:
Are the TR2 discussions about signals going to be over in the libsigc++ forum ? That might imbalance the proposal in my mind toward lisigc++ rather than Boost Signals, and I hope that does not happen.
We'll naturally be taking the good features from both libraries (tracking, combining, syntax, etc.) and tossing out the bad (*ahem* named slot groups)
I do not think that slot groups are bad. They provide an easy ordering mechanism for signals. I would hate to see flexibility thrown out just because the performance has not been optimized depending on whether or not any slot groups are used for any given signal.