On Dec 11, 2007 1:09 PM, Stefan Teleman <stefan.teleman at sun.com> wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > > > How about you do the same for what you are proposing? > > I did.
I didn't see it; and yes, I do read the ARC list so I've seen your case for integrating Qt. > > You *know* that linking Qt against stdcxx can cause conflicts. > > No, i don't know that, but apparently you know what i know better than > i do. > > What conflicts ? Your list of hypotheticals ? > > I'm not interested in discussing hypotheticals, feelings, guesses, > inferences or extrapolations. Facts. Thanks for belittling me by insinuating that I'm just out to expound lies. Yes, I just invent hypothetical problems to make people's lives harder, it's what I do best *sarcasm*. Tell me, what motivation do I have to create a hypothetical situation that creates more work and retards the progress of this project? You yourself told me that applications can't link against stdcxx and the equivalent that Sun provides at the same time. Maybe I misunderstood you, but I don't think so. >From what I remember, *you* stated that if I linked a C++ library against stdcxx, then everything else must be also that uses it. Therefore, if you create a version of Qt that is linked against stdcxx, any applications must be linked against it also, true? That is what I'm working off of. If I can do this: * Build Application X against Qt NOT built against stdcxx * Run Application X on Qt NOT built against stdcxx * Run Application X on Qt built against stdcxx Then there is no conflict and I will consider this "water under the bridge." However, if there is, as I believe there to be, then that is the conflict I am talking about. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
