Carl Nygard <cjnygard@fast.net> writes:

On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 14:09, Doug Gregor wrote:

...

On Nov 18, 2004, at 1:10 PM, Murray Cumming wrote:

...

I'm not in a position to do this at the moment, although possibly in the future. It would be *wonderful* if someone went off and studied both libraries in-depth to make this comparison, especially if that person was not intimately familiar with either library beforehand.

Available: http://www.3sinc.com/opensource/boost.bind-vs-sigc2.html

Updates for code samples from Chris Vine and Jonathan Brandmeyer will be forthcoming.

I could use some suggestions on how to incorporate common code into the code comparison tables.

And of course, any other comments, flames, etc. will be welcome. I'm only doing this as a service for keeping track of comments.

The syntax you're using for boost::function is a bit passe. // Signal with two args and int return value boost::signal2<int, float, string> sig; Should be // Signal with two args and int return value boost::signal<int (float, string)> sig; I think your analysis underestimates or ignores the importance of syntax, most importantly the syntax for invoking a signal. The fact that the Boost signal is an ordinary function object that can be called directly has important implications for interoperability (you don't need binders). NOTE: Boost.Signals documentation states that there are exceptions to using boost::signals::trackable, specifically the trackable base class is unable to manage connections created using Boost.Function or Boost.Lambda. This problem is stated to be resolved in future versions. Trackable Boost.Signals is at a bit of a disadvantage because the trackable class doesn't work with Boost.Lambda and Boost.Function. In this bsense, SigC library's implementation seems superior, if only because you don't have to think about limitations. Does libSigC++ not suffer from an analogous limitation, or did its documentation simply fail to mention it, or is just requiring you to do more work manually? The equivalency table for slot binders is misleading, I think. Boost.Signals has no direct coupling to Boost.Bind, and the fact that Boost.Bind doesn't provide certain binders doesn't mean you can't get them another way. For example, I think you can use Boost.Lambda or Phoenix to create them. As for the retype ... stuff, I don't know what libSigC++ does there. However, no explicit retyping is needed with Boost where the types concerned are implicitly convertible to the expected types. Hope this helps. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com