2013-10-26 12:54, Chris Vine skrev:
It follows that I think the text "It is often possible to replace
sigc::slot<> by the C++11 class std::function<>, for instance ..." is
a little misleading. It is not replacing it, it is wrapping it by
implicit conversion. But as I say, better to encourage people to pass
the lambda expression (or whatever) directly.
You are right. if the slot will be connected to a signal, and that's
what you usually do with slots.
I can change the description. How about this?
*slot_base.h**, Slots*
sigc::slot<> is similar to std::function<>. If you're going to assign
the resulting functor to a sigc::slot or connect it to a sigc::signal,
it's better not to use std::function. It would become un unnecessary
extra wrapper.
Delete the new example with m_Dialog.signal_response().connect(fn).
*slot.h, sigc::slot<>*
sigc::slot<> is similar to std::function<>. If you're going to assign
the resulting functor to a sigc::slot or connect it to a sigc::signal,
it's better not to use std::function. It would become un unnecessary
extra wrapper.
Can you come up with better descriptions?
_______________________________________________
libsigc-list mailing list
libsigc-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/libsigc-list
