Review of std.signal

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-11-08 11:22, Robert wrote:

> I agree that template mixin syntax is a bit nicer, but I ran into a few
> issues with them. In the end I settled with the string mixin, because it
> avoids those issues and also was more powerful (User can now choose the
> protection). How would your template mixin wrapper look like?

Just take the same arguments as the "signal" function, something like:

template signal (string name, string protection, Args...)
{
     mixin(signalImpl!(Args)(name, protection));
}

> Oh, quite the other way round, the public in the assert list is quite
> unnecessary. If you want to go public/export just use "none" as
> protection and set it yourself, like:
> public {
>       mixin(signal!(string, int)("valueChanged", "none"));
> }

If that works, why do you have the option to specify the protection at all?

BWT, shouldn't that assert be static?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg