John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 25 Sep 2000, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
|
| > >>>>> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > >> Anyone any ideas ? Or should I just #define __STRICT_ANSI__ (yuck)
| >
| > John> and looking further I have found the answer. LyX specifically
| > John> removes this define (and in fact won't compile with it). I
| > John> assume this won't change anytime soon, so I will just have to
| > John> define it temporarily when I include the Qt header.
| >
| > I remember we decided to undefine __STRICT_ANSI__ because some code
| > did not work (some C functions were not defined anymore). What kind of
| > compile break do you get? We are trying to go towards ANSI
| > conformance, after all...
| >
| > JMarc
| >
|
| JMarc, I will investigate exactly what breaks when __STRICT_ANSI__ is
| defined later. I would like if possible to leave this defined so we don't
| lie to header files ;)
And we could also just remove the "-ansi" flag. It isn't doing much
for C++ anyway.
Lgb
