Home » Developing U++ » U++ Developers corner » Looking for new names in new callbacks schema
| Looking for new names in new callbacks schema [message #45985] |
Tue, 09 February 2016 09:05  |
 |
mirek
Messages: 13975
Registered: November 2005
|
Ultimate Member |
|
|
I am now sort of refactoring Core to fully 'embrace' C++11. One of things that I decided needs update is Callbacks.
Current (U++2015) version supports lambdas fine, but as sort of 'external' addition. It is not quite effective, lambdas are stored through std::function indirectly, so invoking requires unnecessary pointer dereferencing.
While I plan to use a little bit more of std:: things, I came to conclusion that we need our std::function equivalent because
- std::function is not Moveable (but should be)
- std::function throws exception if it is empty and function is invoked, while more reasonable behaviour is NOP
- our version provides "combination" operator<< that combines several callables into one
Right now, I call this Upp::Function, but I do not quite like the name. I am considering Upp::Fn, Upp::Functor, Upp::Callable, Upp::Delegate ...
Next thing... Even if we have Upp::Function, we still need derived Callback and Gate. The fundamental reason for that is overloading resolution, std::function/Upp::function need to have "catch all" constructor to convert lambdas (which are always of "unknown" type), so using Function directly make impossible to e.g. have Ctrl::operator<<=.
Meanwhile, with C++11 template parameter packs (template varargs), it is relatively possible to avoid most of current callback/callback1/callback2... mess and define single class instead of Callback...Callback5. Unfortunately, this class cannot be just "Callback", because in parameterless form, it still needs an empty list of paramaters ("Callback<>") so it would be backward incompatible. (And yes, we still need to provide all those Callback[N] and callback[n] things for backward compatibility too).
So, so far I have named those new classes CallbackN and GateN, but I do not like these names either...
Any suggestions about how to name those new entities?
Mirek
|
|
|
|
| Re: Looking for new names in new callbacks schema [message #45986 is a reply to message #45985] |
Tue, 09 February 2016 12:07  |
Didier
Messages: 680
Registered: November 2008
Location: France
|
Contributor |
|
|
Well from my point of view, it's better to use names that represent what it is and since callback is already used, ....
* Upp::Fn:........too general, may lead to misunderstanding and confusion
* Upp::Functor:...already widely used in SW articles and books ==> my choice
* Upp::Callable:..defines more a property rather than what it is (sounds like a trait)
* Upp::Delegate:..too far from what it is intended to be used for
[Updated on: Tue, 09 February 2016 12:09] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Apr 20 08:22:46 CEST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.05969 seconds
|
Members
Pages
Help
Register
Login
Home
