On Jan 7, 2005, at 6:12 AM, Murray Cumming wrote:

3. In "Slot Binders" Can you expand on this question: "TODO: answer questions: a) What's up with the No Clue entry, anyone?", please. In fact, please just ask your TODO questions on this mailing list.

So the intent of retype() and retype_return() is to allow casting of the argument and return types of a function. Are these also required when performing implicit conversions? For instance, will the following work? long Func3(double val, string str); sigc::signal sig; sig.connect(sigc::ptr_fun(&Func3)); If I'm right in assuming that the code will not compile (because the signatures do not match exactly), then the "No Clue" could be replaced by "Not Applicable", because Signals performs all of the implicit conversions.

4. Some of the "-ed" comments seem outdated now. It would be nice to clean these up.

Replying to some of the -ed comments: - Regarding implementing the preferred syntax from Boost.Signals in libsigc++: it should be trivial, although support for writing function types is not as portable as we'd like. - Regarding bloat factors: they're probably about the same in both libraries. The only thing we know to do to improve the situation is use function pointers instead of virtual functions, and to try to be careful about factoring our templates properly. - About ptr_fun/mem_fun: you can use them in either library, if you'd like to be more explicit. - About bind: bind is now in the C++ Library TR (an addendum to the standard, which should be approved in the near future), so we're forced to build on it to create any signals & slots library for the standards committee. (We'll have a long, uphill battle if we try to introduce our own special binders and don't support bind). - Regarding libsigc++'s specialization for T_accumulator=nil: We don't need to discuss this in a standards proposal, because it's entirely a quality-of-implementation issue. - Regarding Signals and Function: They don't play well together, but we're going to have to deal with this one way or another because Function is also part of the C++ Library TR. And one minor quibble: if we're going to explicitly qualify Boost.Signals by saying that it was strongly influenced by the work of Karl Nelson (that's true), I think it's only fair to point out that libsigc++-2.0's interface was influenced by Boost.Signals. Doug