Le 08/01/2016 10:08, Stephan Witt a écrit :
Am 08.01.2016 um 09:28 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <lasgout...@lyx.org>:
Yes, unless somone has a different brilliant idea.
Am I right that it makes explicit what is otherwise implicit? So it is safe to
commit?
Yes, I think so. The question is only maintainability. Guillaume
complained that the is fragile because new code can forget to add this
explicit lyx::.
The problem is that libc++ provides std::next even when not in C++11 mode.
Is the implementation of std::next compatible to the e.g.
ParagraphList::iterator or not?
It should. The problem is only that we provide boost::next when not in
C++11 mode, but clang already provides the real std::next.
The proper fix would be to check at configure time whether std::next
exists and react on that. But it is extra work :)
This problem will go away in 2.3.
How? With your fix? Does it fix wrong LyX code or is it some work around?
Because support for c++98 will go away, together with many of our lyx::
wrappers.
Georg, do you have a thought on that?
JMarc
