On Friday, 9 February 2024 06:45:30 PST Volker Hilsheimer via Development
wrote:
> The 3 big C++20 features people ask us about are modules, co-routines, and
> concepts. We have no compelling answers here. You can’t build Qt into a set
> of modules; we have no APIs using co-routines; none of our
Il 09/02/24 15:45, Volker Hilsheimer via Development ha scritto:
So, as much as I’d like for some of the things I’m working on to be able
to benefit from C++ 20, I’d also say that we should rather slow down,
and only require C++20 if we have something to show for it. We can
perhaps still make
On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 06:51:44PM +0100, Philippe wrote:
> >So, as much as I'd like for some of the things I'mworking on to be
> >able to benefit from C++ 20, I'd also say that we should rather slow
> >down, and only require C++20 if we have something to show for it.
>
> C++20 makes for a more
On 9/2/24 16:45, Volker Hilsheimer via Development wrote:
I haven’t heard any convincing argument for us raising the minimum to C++ 20 in
the foreseeable future. Not for building Qt, and not for using Qt.
At most we get some convenience constructs for ourselves. There’s value in that, of
>So, as much as Id like for some of the things Im working on to be
>able to benefit from C++ 20, Id also say that we should rather slow
>down, and only require C++20 if we have something to show for it.
C++20 makes for a more enjoyable coding experience; this human factor
should not be ruled
As a Qt user I am 100% with the sentiments expressed below by Volker. Qt
should not require users to build with C++20 until or unless it has a
compelling reason to do so. Allowing users to use C++20 or C++23 is a
different question.
David Partridge
From: Development On Behalf Of
I haven’t heard any convincing argument for us raising the minimum to C++ 20 in
the foreseeable future. Not for building Qt, and not for using Qt.
At most we get some convenience constructs for ourselves. There’s value in
that, of course. But unless I miss something huge, then that value is
> MSVC2019 and MSVC2022 is supposed to be compatible. So in theory at least
> packages made with MSVC2022 is still usable for MSVC2019 as well. It is just a
> question of which compiler we use to generate the binaries with.
That's not the case, at least according to Microsoft
On Friday, 9 February 2024 10:59:07 CET Vladimir Minenko via Development
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I also think we should first get the 2022 compiler packages available for
> installation in parallel to the 2019 ones. This should be available for
> users for a while so that they have a transition period.
Hi!
I wouldn't once again duplicate these msvc binary packages if that isn't really
mandatory; we already have so many packages and more is coming all the time so
something has to be dropped as well. msvc2022 is quite old already so I would
just replace msvc2019 with msvc2022 from Qt 6.8 ->
Hi,
I also think we should first get the 2022 compiler packages available for
installation in parallel to the 2019 ones. This should be available for users
for a while so that they have a transition period. Along with this, we should
announce that the 2019 compiler will be dismissed by a
Just as a reminder, the "C++20 is mandatory for users of Qt (Phase III)”
(https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-109362) says "The tentative plan is Qt
6.12+”
and "C++20 is required for the development and buiding of Qt itself (Phase II)”
(https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-109361) - "The
12 matches
Mail list logo
