John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 03:44:44AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> slower compile (actually I have not checked that), larger binary.
>
| Out of interest, why is it worse than libsigc++ ?
I am guessing more inlining, and perhaps fewer custom built
c
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 03:44:44AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> slower compile (actually I have not checked that), larger binary.
Out of interest, why is it worse than libsigc++ ?
regards
john
p.s. like this has ever stopped you before :)
--
"Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 03:23:29AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> [patch]
>
| It looks like it's completely seddable ...
only almost...
| is there any reason
| not to apply this now (and kill libsigc++ installation) ?
slower compile (actually I
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 03:23:29AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> [patch]
It looks like it's completely seddable ... is there any reason
not to apply this now (and kill libsigc++ installation) ?
Michael can then use libsigc++ in gnome2 without problems right ?
regards
john
--
"Time is
signals.diff.gz
Description: boost::signals
