>
> Or do you want to help improve the C++11 support in Qt?
Is there a TODO list about possible improvements?
And what's the policy about C++14? Isn't C++14 mostly
a patch/cleanup of C++11?
>
> Or...
>
> Thanks,
> Marc
>
> --
> Marc Mutz | Senior Software Engineer
> KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH
> Von: "Thiago Macieira"
>
>
> Mixing different Qt versions in the same process is not supported. I must
> point
> out that none of the backtraces in either link show this.
You can't use plugins compiled with an older Qt version.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=349371
I assume there are
On 23/07/15 19:16, "Thiago Macieira" wrote:
>On Thursday 23 July 2015 19:22:46 Marc Mutz wrote:
>> I believe we should strive to have the LTS release warning-free in this
>> regard. It's going to be in use for a long time, and the demand for
>>nullptr-
>> correctness will only grow with time.
>
>
On Thursday 23 July 2015 16:29:12 Knoll Lars wrote:
> On 23/07/15 14:27, "Marc Mutz" wrote:
> >On Thursday 08 January 2015 23:33:34 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> >> * Q_DECL_OVERRIDE - required in new code, don't add to old code
> >
> >- Required to be used consistently within a class, because Clang w
On 24/07/15 13:34, "Marc Mutz" wrote:
>On Thursday 23 July 2015 16:29:12 Knoll Lars wrote:
>> On 23/07/15 14:27, "Marc Mutz" wrote:
>> >On Thursday 08 January 2015 23:33:34 Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> >> * Q_DECL_OVERRIDE - required in new code, don't add to old code
>> >
>> >- Required to be use
On Friday 24 July 2015 10:30:32 Peter Kuemmel wrote:
> > Or do you want to help improve the C++11 support in Qt?
>
> Is there a TODO list about possible improvements?
> And what's the policy about C++14? Isn't C++14 mostly
> a patch/cleanup of C++11?
List: we have the list from Thiago, which I as
Rebooting windows is the first thing a windows user learns to do, why it takes
so much to do it ? :)
On Thursday, July 23, 2015 1:05 PM, Friedemann Kleint
wrote:
Hi,
>As far as I know, no. No one has a clue why the creation of a temporary
>directory is failing.
It is sim
Hi
Unfortunately, the QtXml classes contain a lot of bugs and are not really
maintained.
So we came up with the idea to replace the back-end with Xerces and try to
leave the Qt API part the same.
Has anyone tried such an approach already?
If we succeed, we would like to give this code back to
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Gerhard Scheikl
wrote:
> Hi
>
> Unfortunately, the QtXml classes contain a lot of bugs and are not really
> maintained.
> So we came up with the idea to replace the back-end with Xerces and try to
> leave the Qt API part the same.
>
>
Hi,
pugixml has a benchmark
On Friday 24 July 2015 10:36:19 Peter Kuemmel wrote:
> > Von: "Thiago Macieira"
> >
> >
> > Mixing different Qt versions in the same process is not supported. I must
> > point out that none of the backtraces in either link show this.
>
> You can't use plugins compiled with an older Qt version.
On Friday 24 July 2015 13:34:39 Marc Mutz wrote:
> On Thursday 23 July 2015 16:29:12 Knoll Lars wrote:
> > On 23/07/15 14:27, "Marc Mutz" wrote:
> > >On Thursday 08 January 2015 23:33:34 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > >> * Q_DECL_OVERRIDE - required in new code, don't add to old code
> > >
> > >- Req
On Friday 24 July 2015 15:26:30 Gerhard Scheikl wrote:
> Hi
>
> Unfortunately, the QtXml classes contain a lot of bugs and are not really
> maintained.
Hello Gerhard
Your question is answered mostly by your paragraph above: QtXml is in Done
state, so we really don't want to do major surgery in
On Friday 24 July 2015 17:43:59 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> So the question is only whether we want to add the macro now and replace
> with the keyword in 5.7.
>
> I'd say no.
Fair enough, but seeing all the commits flying by that add Q_D_O to "fix
warnings with clang", it's not hard to imagine th
On Friday 24 July 2015 20:23:45 Marc Mutz wrote:
> itself by a grass roots movement and b) people will a not-too-unrealistic
s/people will//
--
Marc Mutz | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt Experts
___
On Friday 24 July 2015 20:23:45 Marc Mutz wrote:
> Fair enough, but seeing all the commits flying by that add Q_D_O to "fix
> warnings with clang", it's not hard to imagine that a) the problem will
> solve itself by a grass roots movement and b) people will a
> not-too-unrealistic future warning
15 matches
Mail list logo
