On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 14:26 +, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 20:56 +0200, Jani Monoses wrote:
> > Is there a list of which compilers are supported and what versions
> > recommeneded for building LO?
> >
> > I was thinking of the feasibility of using gcc's __builtin_constant_p
Caolan McNamara wrote:
> So, with a bit more poking around I discovered the template trick to
> force a compile time error if the argument is not an array, and to
> calculate at compile time the length of the array.
>
Clever hack! :)
Along those lines, any reason not to use boost in sal / udk? I'
On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 00:19 +0100, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> Caolan McNamara wrote:
> > So, with a bit more poking around I discovered the template trick to
> > force a compile time error if the argument is not an array, and to
> > calculate at compile time the length of the array.
> >
> Clever ha
Caolan McNamara wrote:
> Was there a policy against using boost in sal/cppu/etc ?
>
I somehow forgot the rationale, but yeah:
http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=interface-discuss&msgNo=869
-- Thorsten
pgpCyQLOPmvfW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 00:53 +0100, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> Caolan McNamara wrote:
> > Was there a policy against using boost in sal/cppu/etc ?
> >
> I somehow forgot the rationale, but yeah:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=interface-discuss&msgNo=869
Unless I'm failing to s
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 20:21 +, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> Unless I'm failing to see the obvious I wouldn't have a problem with
> using boost in sal and friends, assuming we stick to the vast majority
> of boost that don't require linking against specific boost libs.
Sounds reasonable to
Michael Meeks wrote:
> Does that mean we should use some of the boost system abstractions
> instead of our own home-brewed ones where appropriate - perhaps ;-) - is
> that what underlies the question ? clearly if they perform better it'd
> be lovely - is there some low-hanging fruit here ? I
