Re: [boost] Boost.Signals and Qt
----Original Message---- From: Simon Buchan [mailto:simon@hand-multimedia.co.nz] Sent: 23 September 2005 09:40 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Signals and Qt
Vladimir Prus wrote:
? Do you mean that the current situation is optimal, and any attempts on improving it are just wasting time?
- Volodya
Are you serious? You're writing a library! You think someone might use it with Qt! Yes, dumbass, you SHOULD do that! Take a look at some of the boost headers (esp. functional, lambda, bind) and THEN bitch about how hard it is to write a library. If it hurts your poor fingers (or eyes), put this somewhere useful (ie. detail namespace): namespace whatever = ::boost::BOOST_SIGNALS_NAMESPACE;
Are *you* serious? Volodya ask if you think the current situation is optimal, and you insult him. I don't see how you post adds to the discussion. -- Martin Bonner Martin.Bonner@Pitechnology.com Pi Technology, Milton Hall, Ely Road, Milton, Cambridge, CB4 6WZ, ENGLAND Tel: +44 (0)1223 441434
Martin Bonner wrote:
----Original Message---- From: Simon Buchan [mailto:simon@hand-multimedia.co.nz] Sent: 23 September 2005 09:40 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Signals and Qt
Vladimir Prus wrote:
? Do you mean that the current situation is optimal, and any attempts on improving it are just wasting time?
- Volodya
Are you serious? You're writing a library! You think someone might use it with Qt! Yes, dumbass, you SHOULD do that! Take a look at some of the boost headers (esp. functional, lambda, bind) and THEN bitch about how hard it is to write a library. If it hurts your poor fingers (or eyes), put this somewhere useful (ie. detail namespace): namespace whatever = ::boost::BOOST_SIGNALS_NAMESPACE;
Are *you* serious? Volodya ask if you think the current situation is optimal, and you insult him.
I don't see how you post adds to the discussion. Ok, yes, that _was_ rude. Sorry, Vladimir. I just meant that in library writing, you have bigger worries than an ugly namespace id, and it's easily workaround-able. Not only that, but quite frankly, as long as Qt continues to use the preproccesser with non-unique macro names, yes, I do think Boost.Signals is damn near optimal. Anyone else would have just said "sorry, but you're screwed".
participants (2)
-
Martin Bonner -
Simon Buchan