Hi,
TL;DR: is the conversion of a class to the new comparison helper a
"feature"?
So, the framework, incl. the necessary qdoc command and some ports of
classes (QDate/Time) have made it into 6.7 last week, but the current
state of the code excludes some helper functions necessary for product
On 13.12.23 12:46, Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> The counter-argument is that this doesn't change much because the C++
> standard knows an operation called
Was interrupted when writing this, then forgot to end the sentence
before sending :) Sorry...
...
https://eel.is/c++draft/class.spaces
On Wednesday, 13 December 2023 08:46:57 -03 Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> The question I have, therefore, is the following: is converting more
> classes to the new framework considered a feature as in "affected by FF"?
I'd say simple changes should be fine. There should be no behaviour change
On 13.12.23 18:36, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> So, +1 for me on going ahead.
Thanks!
Is anyone else here for/against?
--
Marc Mutz
Principal Software Engineer
The Qt Company
Erich-Thilo-Str. 10 12489
Berlin, Germany
www.qt.io
Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi, Juha Varelius, Jouni Lintunen
Sitz der G
Il 13/12/23 18:36, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
On Wednesday, 13 December 2023 08:46:57 -03 Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
The question I have, therefore, is the following: is converting more
classes to the new framework considered a feature as in "affected by FF"?
I'd say simple changes shoul
On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 05:40:28AM +, Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> On 13.12.23 18:36, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > So, +1 for me on going ahead.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Is anyone else here for/against?
To me this doesn't look like a new feature, so I don't see the feature freeze
blocking this fo
On 16.12.23 10:20, apoenitz wrote:
> Recently there were two serious regression on the Qt side due to "just using
> string views" (which would also be formally permitted), and I've seen now a
> patch that changes a map to a hash to avoid part of the porting "work" to the
> new comparison scheme tha
On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 at 13:22, apoenitz wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 05:40:28AM +, Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> > On 13.12.23 18:36, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > So, +1 for me on going ahead.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Is anyone else here for/against?
>
> To me this doesn't look like a
> On 17 Dec 2023, at 14:16, Marc Mutz via Development
> wrote:
>
> On 16.12.23 10:20, apoenitz wrote:
>> Recently there were two serious regression on the Qt side due to "just using
>> string views" (which would also be formally permitted), and I've seen now a
>> patch that changes a map to a ha
