Am 08.01.2016 um 10:26 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <lasgout...@lyx.org>: > > 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::.
Scott, I’d like to commit the patch (attached again). Is this ok? Stephan > >>> 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?
lyx-iter-next-prev.patch
Description: Binary data
