On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 06:57:15PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: >> In theory, the implementation could use boost::signal without changing >> the interface, but that would still leave us vulnerable to the fragile >> destruction order. And not using boost::signal would allow us to remove >> ~2500-3000 lines of third party code we distribute with LyX. > > Actually, I think we don't use boost::iostreams nor boost::filesystem > nowadays so we could already remove both compilations from the makefiles.
There are still a few references to boost::filesystem in our code, and maybe some will remain in src/support >> Unless people manage to hit me very hard with some big blunt item I'd >> start "converting" our codebase soonish. Should be not too much of a >> change, actually, and after that we can use signal/slot freely without >> worrying about compile times... > > I have a question: will this work fine if support becomes a dll? There is nothing special here, so if support is ripe, support + slot/signal wrapper will be ripe. Andre'
