On 11.10.2015 10:12, Noel Grandin wrote: > On 10 October 2015 at 15:41, Bjoern Michaelsen > <bjoern.michael...@canonical.com> wrote: >> And if something like boost::signal2 is awesome beyond believe (which is -- >> given Michaels hint about LOCs added at least open to debate), we should >> first >> make our least broken implementation wrap or subclass that as a migration >> path. > > Given that we have lambda's and std::function available now, it should > be straightforward to convert our existing stuff (like tools/link.hxx) > to these without the include overhead of boost::signal
boost::signals actually has a bunch of extra features that all of the existing observers lack, such as groups and priorities, and the question is whether the benefit of these extra features outweighs the obvious compile time cost of boost::signals. in the one case where we actually (AFAICR) use the very advanced feature of multiple observers on one signal, it was possible to limit the header interface to just std::function (see commit 20bd0a2ee9ed899ea542c2de08efda243dbef446). _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
