 |
C++Talk.NET
C++ language newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
habdank
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:49 am Post subject: libsigc++ vs. boost::signals |
 |
|
Hello!
I am very interesting what is present comparision between libsigc++
version 2.0 and boost::signals in boost 1.33.
| Quote: | From documentation I could notice that they are quite similar (with
respect to the functionality and API). |
On Internet I have found that boost::signals have problems with
cooperation with boost::lambda and boost::functional, but in that
information there was not included the number of the boost version. Is
that true for boost 1.33?
Is in libsigc++ possible to connect, a group of functions to one signal
like in boost::signals? In examples for libsigc++ 2.0 there is no
grouping connection to the signal, but this is not a proof that this is
not possible.
Regards, Seweryn Habdank-Wojewodzki.
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Douglas Gregor
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:07 pm Post subject: Re: libsigc++ vs. boost::signals |
|
|
Hello,
habdank wrote:
| Quote: | I am very interesting what is present comparision between libsigc++
version 2.0 and boost::signals in boost 1.33.
|
There's a comparison document here:
http://www.3sinc.com/opensource/boost.bind-vs-sigc2.html
| Quote: | From documentation I could notice that they are quite similar (with
respect to the functionality and API).
|
Yes, the interfaces of the two libraries have nearly converged.
| Quote: | On Internet I have found that boost::signals have problems with
cooperation with boost::lambda and boost::functional, but in that
information there was not included the number of the boost version. Is
that true for boost 1.33?
|
Yes, it is still true for 1.33.
| Quote: | Is in libsigc++ possible to connect, a group of functions to one signal
like in boost::signals? In examples for libsigc++ 2.0 there is no
grouping connection to the signal, but this is not a proof that this is
not possible.
|
The "slot groups" feature of Boost.Signals is not present in libsigc++
2.0. However, I don't know libsigc++ 2.0 well enough to tell you if it
can be emulated somehow.
Doug
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
egladysh@gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:08 am Post subject: Re: libsigc++ vs. boost::signals |
|
|
FYI..
If you are interested in something very simple, you can check out
ttl::sig at http://sourceforge.net/projects/tinytl
It is a lightweight, *header-only* stuff (no .libs).
It should support both ttl::function and boost::function.
It doesn't have some of the advanced features of boost::signals like
combiners, trackable objects, etc.
Basically it's just a simple, "100% portable" container of function
objects. 
It may be suitable as a base for a custom library.
Eugene
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kurt Stege
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 12:38 pm Post subject: Re: libsigc++ vs. boost::signals |
|
|
[email]egladysh (AT) gmail (DOT) com[/email] wrote:
| Quote: | FYI..
If you are interested in something very simple, you can check out
ttl::sig at http://sourceforge.net/projects/tinytl
It is a lightweight, *header-only* stuff (no .libs).
It should support both ttl::function and boost::function.
It doesn't have some of the advanced features of boost::signals like
combiners, trackable objects, etc.
Basically it's just a simple, "100% portable" container of function
objects.
It may be suitable as a base for a custom library.
|
I have a similar offer. These days, I published a draft
"Sigslot Concept" for an idea for a new kind of signal
slot connections. I also use the term "lightweight".
My Sigslot concept has its focus on component development
(for whatever scale of "component" you like, Sigslot
treats components as a hierarchical concept).
It separates between the signals and slots of part of
a component (that has to be easy to develop) on the one
side and the cables and connections used by an
application (or larger component) to connect
the components. In principal, the "composite components"
can be generated by a code generator.
When only static connections are used, where at compile
time is known which objects will exist and how they
have to be connected, the cables can be implemented
as purely static functions that just calls all the
receivers. In this case I don't need any dynamic
memory allocation, and the overhead compared to
a direct function call (where the sending component
knows all the receivers) is minimal. Both makes the
Sigslot Concept interesting for embedded systems!
I have published the first draft of the Sigslot Concept
on <http://www.goto.onlinehome.de/sigslot/index.htm>
Feedback, probably better per Email, is welcome ;-)
Eugene, in the next draft I will add a link to your
project in my paper as a further existing signal slot
implementation.
Best regards,
Kurt.
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
