Sometimes my question is why on the earth one does not make something
non-copyable by declaring and not defining private copy constructor and
operator= and bothers with the complexity of boost for just this little
thing.
Get me right, I love boost, since it simplifies many things, but then
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 09:16:26AM +0200, Fridrich Strba wrote:
Sometimes my question is why on the earth one does not make something
non-copyable by declaring and not defining private copy constructor and
operator= and bothers with the complexity of boost for just this little
thing.
Get me
On 08/30/2013 09:16 AM, Fridrich Strba wrote:
Sometimes my question is why on the earth one does not make something
non-copyable by declaring and not defining private copy constructor and
operator= and bothers with the complexity of boost for just this little
thing.
...because
On 30/08/13 11:11, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
...because boost::noncopyable has become the de-facto standard idiom for
this, at least for pre-C++11 code that depends on Boost anyway.
[citation missing]
Sure, nice to have standard idiom that causes us to have to work-around
implementation bugs.
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
...because boost::noncopyable has become the de-facto standard idiom
for this, at least for pre-C++11 code that depends on Boost anyway.
And it's just one line to parse, ~impossible to screw up subtly, and
declarative rather than implicit. It wins hands-down against any
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:39:22AM +0200, Fridrich Strba wrote:
I even know how to manage my memory myself :)
There are two kinds of people making this statement: Those that have been wrong
and those that will be. ;)
Best,
Bjoern
___
LibreOffice
On 08/30/2013 11:39 AM, Fridrich Strba wrote:
On 30/08/13 11:11, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
...because boost::noncopyable has become the de-facto standard idiom for
this, at least for pre-C++11 code that depends on Boost anyway.
[citation missing]
Sure, nice to have standard idiom that causes us
On 30/08/13 12:15, bjoern wrote:
There are two kinds of people making this statement: Those that have been
wrong
and those that will be. ;)
Sure, don't worry, I'll shut up :)
F.
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
Quoting Kohei Yoshida kohei.yosh...@suse.de:
[snip]
+ -DBOOST_NO_DEFAULTED_FUNCTIONS \
[snip]
I'm having the same issue on my machine running a slightly antiquated
version of openSUSE (11.4), and this change fixes it for me.
Kohei
Thank you, Kohei. My build is making progress.
Terry.
On 08/29/2013 09:56 AM, dk...@torfree.net wrote:
I am unable to build (after `make clean`) master 139a7d2 (pulled today
around 12:30 UTC). The messages are, line-wrapped for e-mail, ...
/home/terry/lo_hacking/git/libo2/workdir/unxlngi6/UnpackedTarball/
boost/boost/noncopyable.hpp:27:21:
error:
Hi Terry and Kohei,
Running openSUSE 11.4 as well, having the same problem as you two.
Over on #libreoffice-dev the suggestion was that my compiler and my
system boost libs are too old. I'm currently trying their suggestion
of:
1 - building boost 1.47 from source
2 - building LO with this boost
On 08/29/2013 03:27 PM, Stephan van den Akker wrote:
Kohei: Can you explain what your change does? I might try that too.
No idea exactly, other than that it avoids the lines that cause error in
my build. I got the idea by reading the offending boost header file
boost/boost/noncopyable.hpp.
On 08/29/2013 03:30 PM, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
On 08/29/2013 03:27 PM, Stephan van den Akker wrote:
Kohei: Can you explain what your change does? I might try that too.
No idea exactly, other than that it avoids the lines that cause error
in my build. I got the idea by reading the offending
Kohei, don't let me down. I spend most of the day educating the masses
on #libreoffice-dev that 11.4 is not *antiquated* of *end of life*,
but beautifully Evergreen.
2013/8/29 Kohei Yoshida kohei.yosh...@suse.de:
On 08/29/2013 03:30 PM, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
On 08/29/2013 03:27 PM, Stephan van
14 matches
Mail list logo
