Callbacks should be unregistered when the object that they are associated with are destroyed, right?
Yes absolutely
How do you propose to handle this for POD?
POD out of scope Bidirectional Databinding function pointer destruction? The real trick is that in my example POD could be chained together so upon destruction the chain must be traversed or a list kept of all bound variables which is used to unregister the remaining data bound PODs. It's not clear to me how to handle this. I don't have all the answers... hopefully these discussions would help flush them out. Step 1: Ask the question: Does this concept have merit? Step 2: Investigate the possibilities Step 3 Propose solutions Not sure I even know the answer to step 1 yet. I know it makes for cleaner code.. This helps. I posted my example to see if there was any interest and see if it has merit. Brian. On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj@gmail.com> wrote:
AMDG
Brian Davis wrote:
--except where the compiler can
prove that no event is registered for a particular integer.
Yes... Exactly. Either you pay for the overhead of the template type or you pay in the compiler adding extra code for types where events can be registered. . The difference is that it provides for direct data binding for primitive types. Syntax can make it clear to the compiler that extra code must be inserted. In your example there is no syntax that specifies a get/set for the local variable i. The problem I think is clear the solution... not so much.
Ok. That's better. One more issue:
Callbacks should be unregistered when the object that they are associated with are destroyed, right? How do you propose to handle this for POD?
In Christ, Steven Watanabe
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost