On Monday 08 March 2004 09:13 pm, Thomas Witt wrote:
Douglas Paul Gregor wrote:
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, E. Gladyshev wrote:
Yes, but it seems that I've omitted any way to get to the combiner. Sounds like something we should add.
That was me, actually; I'm already convinced, and the omission of the combiner was an unfortunate oversight.
Violent agreement. I have another use case, I came across recently.
Always appreciated.
Think of a container C that stores elements of type E. The container has a signal that is called whenever an element is added. The element has destroy method and a signal that is emitted when it is destroyed.
The problem is that currently calling remove during a call to a slot connected to the add signal of the container leads to desaster.
This is a problem with the data structure storing the E elements, not Signals itself, right? Signals is designed to be resilient to this type of thing.
The easy solution would be to connect the slot combiner to the remove signal and stop slot calling in case the element is removed. Though this is really complicated now as there is no direct access to the combiner.
I'll check in the fix in a few hours. Doug