General +1 to take advantage of C++11 where appropriate,
AFAICS OSX needs some investigation?, otherwise we're close to being
able to support it.
@Tom M: I'm not concerned with static checking tools, mainly because
using C++11 in a few places won't suddenly make static checkers fail
on the rest
@Campbell I am pretty sure give how hard Apple is pushing out new releases
and given how many people upgrade that we can just assume an llvm/clang
3.0+ feature set for c++11.
I think we should also do this analysis for C99 support and C11 support.
There are some other projects out there that use
It's great to see that C++11 has general support. It would be really
helpful in the depsgraph to deal with closures, among other places. Without
this we'd have to either tediously backport boost implementation (but why
reinvent the wheel?), or use lots of bloated cumbersome type definitions
and C
Regarding OSX, it should plain work.
I use c++11 based projects since a while without any issues recognized.
Anyway apple clang is based on common clang svn, just with some specials addedas
for example xcode integration etc. ..
Jens
Am 07.06.2014 um 12:04 schrieb Lukas Tönne
