Am 23.10.2015 um 20:55 schrieb Guillaume Munch:
Le 23/10/2015 17:55, Peter Kümmel a écrit :
I wonder to still see auto_ptr:
https://travis-ci.org/syntheticpp/lyx
Which old compiler you wanna support?
Peter
Dear Peter,
See
<http://mid.gmane.org/326d2a33-d65f-488d-9bc3-5331535a4...@lyx.org>
and subsequent messages. The only concrete example was
Jean-Marc's OSX 10.7 computer, although in this case there is a
straightfoward fix according to Google.
Hi Guillaume,
I assume GCC on this system is very old, but Xcode also
ships with clang, which supports
"The LLVM compiler now supports C++11 'user defined
literals' and 'unrestricted unions' features."
https://developer.apple.com/library/watchos/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/WhatsNewXcode/Articles/xcode_4_0.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40016147-SW5
so maybe using clang is an option.
Another argument in favour of keeping C++98 seemed to be that
backporting from C++11 to C++98 is supposed to be effortless
(which makes me wonder why C++11 was at all invented). However the
discussion about allowing Unicode string literals clearly showed the
contrary: <http://mid.gmane.org/mv8skg$jb7$1...@ger.gmane.org>.
The overall discussion about C++11 was rather unconvincing,
and as a consequence I have already decided to use C++11 features
without restraint starting from 2.3, and not to make a single
non-trivial effort at possible backports into 2.2 of any of my patches. One
cannot claim one day that LyX is short in developer time, and another day
that increasing backporting efforts is without consequences. This
makes me hope that this 2.2 version will be short-lived (however
impatient I am to see it out).
Then backporting is an argument to require c++11 already for
2.2.
Peter
Guillaume
