std.signals2 proposal

[Sean Kelly]

On Nov 6, 2012, at 2:09 PM, eskimo <jfanatiker at gmx.at> wrote:

> On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 11:16 -0800, Sean Kelly wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 2012, at 5:36 AM, Robert <jfanatiker at gmx.at> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I just developed a proof-of-concept implementation of an improved
>>> std.signals. 
>> 
>> Make sure that the behavior when calling std.signals operations from within a callback is well-defined.  It should either explicitly disallow this or, ideally, support it with deterministic results.
> 
> I am pretty sure I don't understand what you mean. Calling std.signals
> methods from an invoked slot is as safe as from any other random
> function. Am I missing something?

What happens when a callback removes itself from the signal when called?  What happens when it adds a new callback?  Since these operations modify the list that's currently being iterated across, the implementation typically has to be done in a way that accounts for this.