On Sunday, 4 June 2023 08:24:14 PDT Ivan Solovev via Development wrote: > Like I wrote, I generally consider this task done, except for the naming > issues. I have an impression that we will be able to come to an agreement > in a reasonable time frame. > > However, if you think that there are more issues, let's discuss them and see > what we can do to fix them. I totally agree that we shouldn't merge > something that is not 100% ready.
Your currently-pushed work only tested the four datetime classes. What else is there? Are there any pitfalls we need to know about? I named two dozen comparable classes recently. Have you got any unpushed work that shows how those classes would be adapted to the spaceship? Are there more classes that are orderable and would benefit? The other problem is I want to take a second, thorough look at your #ifdefs for C++20. I have a feeling some of the changing return types are a recipe for binary compatibility problems, if not in our own code, then in code that uses our code. I need to sit down and think about whether this is a valid scenario or not. And unfortunately, the software I work on for $DAYJOB also had feature freeze on Friday, so I am now busy with its release procedures and thus I don't think I'll be able to give the necessary time this feature requires for at least one week. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development