Re: Minimum compiler version

[Peter Kümmel]

Am 29.10.2015 um 20:17 schrieb Georg Baum:


BTW, I wanted to try the cross-compiling myself for several montsh now,
because I am curious, but did not find the time up to now.


The build-bot already cross-compiles for Windows, it is NOT a Windows machine.
Recently travis updated their bots to to Ubuntu LTS 14.04 und I changed the
scripts to use mingw-w64 shipped by Ubuntu.

So when you clone
https://github.com/syntheticpp/lyx.git
and checkout the branch 'bleeding-edge-master', install mingw-w64
(have a look at .travis.yml) then a simple call of
./development/cmake/scripts/travis.sh
starts the cross-compliation of lyx.

(It does not work on Ubuntu 15.04.)




Georg

Re: Minimum compiler version

[Georg Baum]

Peter Kümmel wrote:

> In another project I saw speed improvements just
> by enabling C++11 (I assume mainly because of the
> move semantic).

Yes, I guess we all agree that C++11 brings many improvements.

> I would even support MSVC only for developers and do the
> release with MinGW, would simplify compiling all the
> dependencies a lot.

And if we can create the installer under wine, then we could setup an 
automatic build for windows and linux on the same machine. That would be 
cool!

BTW, I wanted to try the cross-compiling myself for several montsh now, 
because I am curious, but did not find the time up to now.


Georg

Re: Minimum compiler version

[Peter Kümmel]

Am 25.10.2015 um 20:31 schrieb Georg Baum:

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:


I thought we always wanted to support as many compilers as reasonably
possible in order to allow newcomers to easily compile LyX and to let
them contribute. Does it make sense to still support Qt 4.5, but to
require the last version of the Microsoft compiler ?


BTW I do not think that Qt 4.5 needs to be supported. One could also discuss
in principle whether support for MSVC2010 is needed, or whether we could
require 2012.

The most important reason to support C++98 in 2.2.0 is IMHO that a change so
fundamental as to switch from one standard version to another is always a
risky thing, and doing it immediately before a release is the worst timing
one could have. These changes need to be done in the development branch
directly after a stable release in order to get more experience. This is not
pure theory, simply by compiling in C++11 mode we did already find a bug in
a mature, well reputed compiler:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67557 Who tells us that there
is not another one hidden (maybe in another compiler)?



Very interesting bug, even if the code looks a bit strange.

In another project I saw speed improvements just
by enabling C++11 (I assume mainly because of the
move semantic).




Since we need to support C++98 anyway it is also clear that MSVC 2010 should
not be dropped. This eases the work of the windows people a lot: No new
dependencies are required right now, and nobody needs to learn a new version
(remember that MSVC is not only a compiler, but an IDE).


I would even support MSVC only for developers and do the
release with MinGW, would simplify compiling all the 
dependencies a lot.



Finally, supporting C++98 for 2.2.0 does not cost us anything right now,
since no biger changes will happen before the release anyway, and the
existing code supports C++98. Also, those who want to compile in C++11-mode
can do so as well if they are willing to accept a higher risk. If the case
happens that backporting a bugfix to 2.2.x will be difficult (as mentioned
by Guillaume), then we can still see how to solve that problem at the time
when it happens. IMHO, a backporting difficulty caused by the need to
support the old standard is in no way different from a backporting
difficulty caused by some code refactoring. In both cases, one needs to
assess the importance of the bug fix, the cost of it and its risk. Then one
can decide whether to do it or not.


Georg

Re: Minimum compiler version

[Guillaume Munch]

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:


I thought we always wanted to support as many compilers as reasonably
possible in order to allow newcomers to easily compile LyX and to let
them contribute.


Please, take also into account other factors determining the
attractiveness to newcomers, such as switching from a language that some
people find repulsive, to a language that they find slightly less repulsive.



Le 25/10/2015 19:31, Georg Baum a écrit :

The most important reason to support C++98 in 2.2.0 is IMHO that a change so
fundamental as to switch from one standard version to another is always a
risky thing, and doing it immediately before a release is the worst timing
one could have. These changes need to be done in the development branch
directly after a stable release in order to get more experience. This is not
pure theory, simply by compiling in C++11 mode we did already find a bug in
a mature, well reputed compiler:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67557 Who tells us that there
is not another one hidden (maybe in another compiler)?

Since we need to support C++98 anyway it is also clear that MSVC 2010 should
not be dropped. This eases the work of the windows people a lot: No new
dependencies are required right now, and nobody needs to learn a new version
(remember that MSVC is not only a compiler, but an IDE).



Yes, I am now convinced, and agree anyway that this is no longer the
time frame.


Finally, supporting C++98 for 2.2.0 does not cost us anything right now,
since no biger changes will happen before the release anyway, and the
existing code supports C++98. Also, those who want to compile in C++11-mode
can do so as well if they are willing to accept a higher risk. If the case
happens that backporting a bugfix to 2.2.x will be difficult (as mentioned
by Guillaume), then we can still see how to solve that problem at the time
when it happens. IMHO, a backporting difficulty caused by the need to
support the old standard is in no way different from a backporting
difficulty caused by some code refactoring. In both cases, one needs to
assess the importance of the bug fix, the cost of it and its risk. Then one
can decide whether to do it or not.


I am willing to do reasonable efforts in this area.



Guillaume

Re: Minimum compiler version

[Vincent van Ravesteijn]

Op 24-10-2015 om 7:13 schreef Peter Kümmel:



Am 23.10.2015 um 21:34 schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn:

support of MSVC2010.


I think I don't need to tell Peter about MSVC support for
C++11 (I guess he knows better than me).

The message was really meant for you: if you introduce C++11
features that cannot compile on MSVC, you will meet some
resistance.



So only you insist on MSVC2010 support?

Peter


I thought we always wanted to support as many compilers as reasonably 
possible in order to allow newcomers to easily compile LyX and to let 
them contribute. Does it make sense to still support Qt 4.5, but to 
require the last version of the Microsoft compiler ?


Vincent

Re: Minimum compiler version

[Georg Baum]

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:

> I thought we always wanted to support as many compilers as reasonably
> possible in order to allow newcomers to easily compile LyX and to let
> them contribute. Does it make sense to still support Qt 4.5, but to
> require the last version of the Microsoft compiler ?

BTW I do not think that Qt 4.5 needs to be supported. One could also discuss 
in principle whether support for MSVC2010 is needed, or whether we could 
require 2012.

The most important reason to support C++98 in 2.2.0 is IMHO that a change so 
fundamental as to switch from one standard version to another is always a 
risky thing, and doing it immediately before a release is the worst timing 
one could have. These changes need to be done in the development branch 
directly after a stable release in order to get more experience. This is not 
pure theory, simply by compiling in C++11 mode we did already find a bug in 
a mature, well reputed compiler: 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67557 Who tells us that there 
is not another one hidden (maybe in another compiler)?

Since we need to support C++98 anyway it is also clear that MSVC 2010 should 
not be dropped. This eases the work of the windows people a lot: No new 
dependencies are required right now, and nobody needs to learn a new version 
(remember that MSVC is not only a compiler, but an IDE).

Finally, supporting C++98 for 2.2.0 does not cost us anything right now, 
since no biger changes will happen before the release anyway, and the 
existing code supports C++98. Also, those who want to compile in C++11-mode 
can do so as well if they are willing to accept a higher risk. If the case 
happens that backporting a bugfix to 2.2.x will be difficult (as mentioned 
by Guillaume), then we can still see how to solve that problem at the time 
when it happens. IMHO, a backporting difficulty caused by the need to 
support the old standard is in no way different from a backporting 
difficulty caused by some code refactoring. In both cases, one needs to 
assess the importance of the bug fix, the cost of it and its risk. Then one 
can decide whether to do it or not.


Georg

Re: Minimum compiler version

[Stephan Witt]

Am 24.10.2015 um 07:11 schrieb Peter Kümmel :

> Am 23.10.2015 um 21:27 schrieb Stephan Witt:
>>> See 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Note, I've to pass --disable-cxx11 to configure to build LyX on
>> my system. LyX 2.1.x an Mac is available for systems back to OS 10.6
>> for LyX 2.2.0 there isn't any statement for which systems it should
>> be available.
>> 
>> Stephan
> 
> The compiler version depends on the developer system/Xcode version not the 
> Mac OS target version.

Yes, that's the theory. But I have an 10.6 system to build LyX for i386 on 10.5
because this isn't possible anymore with newer Qt on 10.8. Sorry, I cannot
recall the details ATM.

> 
> Overall "Mac users" are used to see new features not supported on older 
> systems. So I see no problem to have 2.2 running on more recent OS version.

There is a difference between a new feature not supported on old systems
and an application not supported anymore.

I don't have a problem with not supporting any old system either.
It should be written somewhere in the RELEASE notes if LyX 2.2 is
not available for 10.5 anymore, IMO.

Stephan

> 
> Peter
> 
>> 
>>> 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:
>>> .
>>> 
>>> 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).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Guillaume

Re: Minimum compiler version

[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 
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.

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:
.

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).



Guillaume

Minimum compiler version

[Peter Kümmel]

I wonder to still see auto_ptr:

https://travis-ci.org/syntheticpp/lyx

Which old compiler you wanna support?

Peter

Re: Minimum compiler version

[Peter Kümmel]

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


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:  .

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

Re: Minimum compiler version

[Peter Kümmel]

Am 23.10.2015 um 21:16 schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn:

Guillaume


Well, I probably can wake you from your dreams of C++11
quickly when I try compiling your C++11 features with
MSVC2010...




Vincent

Re: Minimum compiler version

[Peter Kümmel]

Am 23.10.2015 um 21:16 schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn:

Guillaume


Well, I probably can wake you from your dreams of C++11
quickly when I try compiling your C++11 features with
MSVC2010...



There is MSVC 2015, which is nearly C++11/14 feature 
complete. So is there any good reason not to require MSVC15?


And if someone could not install MSVC2015 on his system, 
maybe because he uses the system (and time ;) ) at work,

he could still copy a QtCreator version with MinGW without
admin rights.

Peter


Vincent

Re: Minimum compiler version

[Peter Kümmel]

Am 23.10.2015 um 21:27 schrieb Stephan Witt:

See 
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.


Note, I've to pass --disable-cxx11 to configure to build LyX on
my system. LyX 2.1.x an Mac is available for systems back to OS 10.6
for LyX 2.2.0 there isn't any statement for which systems it should
be available.

Stephan


The compiler version depends on the developer system/Xcode 
version not the Mac OS target version.


Overall "Mac users" are used to see new features not 
supported on older systems. So I see no problem to have 2.2 
running on more recent OS version.


Peter




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:
.

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).



Guillaume

Re: Minimum compiler version

[Peter Kümmel]

Am 23.10.2015 um 21:34 schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn:

support of MSVC2010.


I think I don't need to tell Peter about MSVC support for
C++11 (I guess he knows better than me).

The message was really meant for you: if you introduce C++11
features that cannot compile on MSVC, you will meet some
resistance.



So only you insist on MSVC2010 support?

Peter


Vincent

Re: Minimum compiler version

[Guillaume Munch]

Le 23/10/2015 20:34, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit :

Op 23-10-2015 om 21:22 schreef Guillaume Munch:

Le 23/10/2015 20:16, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit :

Op 23-10-2015 om 20:55 schreef 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 
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.

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:
.

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).

Guillaume


Well, I probably can wake you from your dreams of C++11 quickly when I
try compiling your C++11 features with MSVC2010...

Vincent





I think that your message was meant as an answer Peter's question
explaining that for some reason you need the support of MSVC2010.


I think I don't need to tell Peter about MSVC support for C++11 (I guess
he knows better than me).

The message was really meant for you: if you introduce C++11 features
that cannot compile on MSVC, you will meet some resistance.



Ok, but then it is the same situation for 2.3, and about specific 
features. Good to know in advance, but this will need to be discussed as 
it happens.

Re: Minimum compiler version

[Vincent van Ravesteijn]

Op 23-10-2015 om 20:55 schreef 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 
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.

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:
.

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).

Guillaume


Well, I probably can wake you from your dreams of C++11 quickly when I 
try compiling your C++11 features with MSVC2010...


Vincent

Re: Minimum compiler version

[Guillaume Munch]

Le 23/10/2015 20:16, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit :

Op 23-10-2015 om 20:55 schreef 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 
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.

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:
.

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).

Guillaume


Well, I probably can wake you from your dreams of C++11 quickly when I
try compiling your C++11 features with MSVC2010...

Vincent






I think that your message was meant as an answer Peter's question 
explaining that for some reason you need the support of MSVC2010.

Re: Minimum compiler version

[Stephan Witt]

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 
> 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.

Note, I've to pass --disable-cxx11 to configure to build LyX on
my system. LyX 2.1.x an Mac is available for systems back to OS 10.6
for LyX 2.2.0 there isn't any statement for which systems it should
be available.
 
Stephan

> 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:
> .
> 
> 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).
> 
> 
> 
> Guillaume
> 
> 

Re: Minimum compiler version

[Guillaume Munch]

Le 23/10/2015 20:27, Stephan Witt a écrit :

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 
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.


Note, I've to pass --disable-cxx11 to configure to build LyX on
my system. LyX 2.1.x an Mac is available for systems back to OS 10.6
for LyX 2.2.0 there isn't any statement for which systems it should
be available.

Stephan


At least, it seems that you are not entirely out of luck for 2.3 
according to a link that I've posted previously: 
.

Re: Minimum compiler version

[Guillaume Munch]

Le 23/10/2015 20:22, Guillaume Munch a écrit :

Le 23/10/2015 20:16, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit :

Op 23-10-2015 om 20:55 schreef 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 
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.

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:
.

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).

Guillaume


Well, I probably can wake you from your dreams of C++11 quickly when I
try compiling your C++11 features with MSVC2010...

Vincent






I think that your message was meant as an answer Peter's question
explaining that for some reason you need the support of MSVC2010.



(To clarify: I don't doubt it. I know nothing about the situation there.)

Re: Minimum compiler version

[Vincent van Ravesteijn]

Op 23-10-2015 om 21:22 schreef Guillaume Munch:

Le 23/10/2015 20:16, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit :

Op 23-10-2015 om 20:55 schreef 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 
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.

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:
.

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).

Guillaume


Well, I probably can wake you from your dreams of C++11 quickly when I
try compiling your C++11 features with MSVC2010...

Vincent





I think that your message was meant as an answer Peter's question 
explaining that for some reason you need the support of MSVC2010.


I think I don't need to tell Peter about MSVC support for C++11 (I guess 
he knows better than me).


The message was really meant for you: if you introduce C++11 features 
that cannot compile on MSVC, you will meet some resistance.


Vincent