Andre Poenitz wrote:
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,
I just cleanup those. I didn't touch the ones in client because I cannot
test nor compile them under Windows.
and
maybe some will remain in src/support
Some look difficult.
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.
Great!
Abdel.
