On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 11:27:03PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
Would it be Ok if I added these blocks around struct debug_trait?
Maybe I'll make the macro name more polite ;-)
I'm fairly sure one of the first changes I had rejected by the LyX team
was trying to fix up Qt namespace pollution by
Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Pretty well every single Qt dialog file has to #include debug.h
| before any of the Qt system headers or the compiler gets confused.
| Why? Because Qt in its wisdom defines a macro DEBUG that clashes with
| the DEBUG defined in support/debugstream.h that
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| Would it be Ok if I added these blocks around struct debug_trait?
| Maybe I'll make the macro name more polite ;-)
I am with john... make two small .h files in the qt three and use
them in other files to workaround qt stuff.
Ah, well. It appears that Mate's
Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| Would it be Ok if I added these blocks around struct debug_trait?
| Maybe I'll make the macro name more polite ;-)
I am with john... make two small .h files in the qt three and use
them in other files to workaround qt
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 12:46:15PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
Qt has a similar problem with its 'signals' macro and namespace
boost::signals. Actually, that one is a bit more insidious because we
#include boost/signals[1-9]*.hpp in lots of other header files, so
the pollution can pop up
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| #ifdef TEMPORARY_DEBUG_MACRO
| # define DEBUG TEMPORARY_DEBUG_MACRO
| # undef TEMPORARY_DEBUG_MACRO
| #endif
| I can see that this is nasty, but it does have the advantage of
| just working.
| The alternative, defining qt_debug.h, as a wrapper for debug.h is
John Levon wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 12:46:15PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
Qt has a similar problem with its 'signals' macro and namespace
boost::signals. Actually, that one is a bit more insidious because
we
#include boost/signals[1-9]*.hpp in lots of other header files, so
the
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 01:18:44PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
Because I was trying to wrap the Qt code inside namespace
lyx::frontend and got offended by it all.
That's not too hard to do...
It wasn't me that added this comment:
// Dear Lord, deliver us from Evil,
// aka the Qt headers
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 11:27:03PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Would it be Ok if I added these blocks around struct debug_trait?
> Maybe I'll make the macro name more polite ;-)
I'm fairly sure one of the first changes I had rejected by the LyX team
was trying to fix up Qt namespace pollution
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Pretty well every single Qt dialog file has to #include "debug.h"
| before any of the Qt system headers or the compiler gets confused.
| Why? Because Qt in its wisdom defines a macro DEBUG that clashes with
| the DEBUG defined in support/debugstream.h
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | Would it be Ok if I added these blocks around struct debug_trait?
> | Maybe I'll make the macro name more polite ;-)
>
> I am with john... make two small .h files in the qt three and use
> them in other files to workaround qt stuff.
Ah, well. It appears that Mate's
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> | Would it be Ok if I added these blocks around struct debug_trait?
>> | Maybe I'll make the macro name more polite ;-)
>>
>> I am with john... make two small .h files in the qt three and use
>> them in other files to
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 12:46:15PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Qt has a similar problem with its 'signals' macro and namespace
> boost::signals. Actually, that one is a bit more insidious because we
> #include boost/signals[1-9]*.hpp in lots of other header files, so
> the pollution can pop
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | #ifdef TEMPORARY_DEBUG_MACRO
> | # define DEBUG TEMPORARY_DEBUG_MACRO
> | # undef TEMPORARY_DEBUG_MACRO
> | #endif
>>
> | I can see that this is nasty, but it does have the advantage of
> | just working.
>>
> | The alternative, defining qt_debug.h, as a wrapper for
John Levon wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 12:46:15PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
>> Qt has a similar problem with its 'signals' macro and namespace
>> boost::signals. Actually, that one is a bit more insidious because
>> we
>> #include boost/signals[1-9]*.hpp in lots of other header files,
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 01:18:44PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Because I was trying to wrap the Qt code inside namespace
> lyx::frontend and got offended by it all.
That's not too hard to do...
> It wasn't me that added this comment:
>
> // Dear Lord, deliver us from Evil,
> // aka the Qt
Pretty well every single Qt dialog file has to #include debug.h
before any of the Qt system headers or the compiler gets confused.
Why? Because Qt in its wisdom defines a macro DEBUG that clashes with
the DEBUG defined in support/debugstream.h that is #included through
the Qt button controller.
Pretty well every single Qt dialog file has to #include "debug.h"
before any of the Qt system headers or the compiler gets confused.
Why? Because Qt in its wisdom defines a macro DEBUG that clashes with
the DEBUG defined in support/debugstream.h that is #included through
the Qt button controller.
18 matches
Mail list logo
