Doesn't std.signal completely miss the point?

[Andrej Mitrovic]

>From what I can tell std.signal is designed around the idea that an
entire class acts as a signal emitter, without the ability to write
multiple signals within one class and making arbitrary connections
between signals and slots.

If you actually read the full paper it links to:
http://www.elpauer.org/stuff/a_deeper_look_at_signals_and_slots.pdf

you'll see that the idea of signals and slots is to avoid writing
specialized signal classes, and instead just use member functions as
signal emitters.

I don't see why we can't have something as good or even better than
Qt's and Boost's signals and slots implementations. I admit I haven't
had a look at the other implementations linked from the std.signals
page yet, so maybe there's some better implementations out there. But
from a current standpoint it looks to me like std.signal is a good
candidate for a revamp.