On 11/24/2015 02:37 PM, Georg Baum wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 06:40:45PM +, Guillaume Munch wrote:
>>> Le 22/11/2015 17:38, Georg Baum a écrit :
It is now also clear that the MSVC workaround is not needed, so I
deleted it. Is the attached patch OK to
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 06:40:45PM +, Guillaume Munch wrote:
>> Le 22/11/2015 17:38, Georg Baum a écrit :
>> >It is now also clear that the MSVC workaround is not needed, so I
>> >deleted it. Is the attached patch OK to go in?
>>
>> Looks good (I trust that the small
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 06:40:45PM +, Guillaume Munch wrote:
> Le 22/11/2015 17:38, Georg Baum a écrit :
> >It is now also clear that the MSVC workaround is not needed, so I deleted
> >it. Is the attached patch OK to go in?
>
> Looks good (I trust that the small details are ok). I have the
On 11/22/2015 12:38 PM, Georg Baum wrote:
> It is now also clear that the MSVC workaround is not needed, so I deleted it.
> Is the attached patch OK to go in?
Just one question: The regex that caused the original crash I reported
is all right now? I.e., no conditional compilation needs to be
Le 22/11/2015 18:23, Richard Heck a écrit :
On 11/22/2015 12:38 PM, Georg Baum wrote:
It is now also clear that the MSVC workaround is not needed, so I deleted it.
Is the attached patch OK to go in?
Just one question: The regex that caused the original crash I reported
is all right now?
Guillaume Munch wrote:
> Le 22/11/2015 18:23, Richard Heck a écrit :
>>
>> Just one question: The regex that caused the original crash I reported
>> is all right now? I.e., no conditional compilation needs to be used for
>> it?
Yes, the crash was already fixed by Guillaume. This patch has
Le 22/11/2015 17:38, Georg Baum a écrit :
Guillaume Munch wrote:
Le 20/11/2015 19:43, Georg Baum a écrit :
It does. The reason is that the output of escape_special_chars() changes
when compiling with std::regex. The attached patch would fix the test for
std::regex, but then make check would
Le 22/11/2015 17:42, Georg Baum a écrit :
Richard Heck wrote:
Actually, is there some reason we do not use QRegExp? My limited
research says it is in QtCore. We could certainly replace boost::regex
with that. I don't know if it would play nicer with std::regex or not,
but we could also just
Guillaume Munch wrote:
> Looks good (I trust that the small details are ok). I have the same
> understanding. Isn't the "FIXME: Unicode" trivial to fix btw?
With C++11 and after docstring is changed to be std::u32string yes. I
believe that it is possible, but far from easy and not worth the
Richard Heck wrote:
> Actually, is there some reason we do not use QRegExp? My limited
> research says it is in QtCore. We could certainly replace boost::regex
> with that. I don't know if it would play nicer with std::regex or not,
> but we could also just use it throughout.
I guess we could
Guillaume Munch wrote:
> Le 20/11/2015 19:43, Georg Baum a écrit :
>>
>> It does. The reason is that the output of escape_special_chars() changes
>> when compiling with std::regex. The attached patch would fix the test for
>> std::regex, but then make check would fail when using boost::regex.
>
Le 20/11/2015 19:43, Georg Baum a écrit :
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
I was hoping the recent commit fixing regex issues would fix the failing
test (test_biblio) of 'make check'. I just wanted to confirm that the
test fails for others on current master also.
It does. The reason is that the output
On 11/21/2015 10:40 AM, Richard Heck wrote:
> On 11/21/2015 10:19 AM, Guillaume Munch wrote:
>> Le 20/11/2015 19:43, Georg Baum a écrit :
>>> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>>>
I was hoping the recent commit fixing regex issues would fix the
failing
test (test_biblio) of 'make check'. I
On 11/21/2015 10:19 AM, Guillaume Munch wrote:
> Le 20/11/2015 19:43, Georg Baum a écrit :
>> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>>
>>> I was hoping the recent commit fixing regex issues would fix the
>>> failing
>>> test (test_biblio) of 'make check'. I just wanted to confirm that the
>>> test fails for
Richard Heck wrote:
> This is a bit worrying, and it makes me wonder about the wisdom of
> trying to support different regex engines. What was the reason not just
> to use the boost one? if only for consistency?
We want to get rid of the boost one. I think it is possible to use both in
I was hoping the recent commit fixing regex issues would fix the failing
test (test_biblio) of 'make check'. I just wanted to confirm that the
test fails for others on current master also.
Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> I was hoping the recent commit fixing regex issues would fix the failing
> test (test_biblio) of 'make check'. I just wanted to confirm that the
> test fails for others on current master also.
It does. The reason is that the output of escape_special_chars() changes
when
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 08:43:10PM +0100, Georg Baum wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>
> > I was hoping the recent commit fixing regex issues would fix the failing
> > test (test_biblio) of 'make check'. I just wanted to confirm that the
> > test fails for others on current master also.
>
> It
On 11/20/2015 02:43 PM, Georg Baum wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>
>> I was hoping the recent commit fixing regex issues would fix the failing
>> test (test_biblio) of 'make check'. I just wanted to confirm that the
>> test fails for others on current master also.
> It does. The reason is that
19 matches
Mail list logo
