Hi Jeff, On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 6:11 AM, Jeff Flinn wrote:

It might be more expeditious to directly paste Frank's points from his email in the above thread. I've pasted them below. Is the intent to only review these changes?

Thanks for pasting that in. I think any issue related to the library would be appropriate to raise during the review, even if it would apply to the current Boost.Signals library (reviews are good times to figure things out :-)). The original Boost.Signals review discussion can be found here: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2002/02/index.php I'm not sure how applicable that discussion would be now since I imagine the library has evolved quite a bit over the years, but it might be useful to revisit if we end up discussing things that apply to Boost.Signals as well as the proposed library.

Is there any info on the cost of this thread safe implementation vs. the signals1 in a single threaded application?

I assume that the following comparison was done for a single threaded app (using dummy_mutex), but if not I suspect the results would be an upper bound for the single threaded case: http://www.nabble.com/boost%3A%3Asignal-poor-performance-td19602422.html#a19... Best, Stjepan