Hello,
On Monday 01 July 2013 07:05:03 Kevin Ottens wrote:
On Sunday 30 June 2013 22:48:50 Ivan Čukić wrote:
+1 ABI should be the same in both versions (unlike gcc's std::list
iirc)
Just wondering, was this email as OK, I see where you come from, or
was
it
I think we
Hello,
On Saturday 29 June 2013 18:51:38 Ivan Čukić wrote:
I don't agree that these /additional/ features are about the api.
algorithm is an (IMO) immensely useful, especially with lambdas and
std::bind for actual non exposed parts.
Well, yes that's all useful. That's the type of
+1 ABI should be the same in both versions (unlike gcc's std::list iirc)
Just wondering, was this email as OK, I see where you come from, or was it
I think we should discuss this at Akademy (with Aaron, Martin and Marco as a
minimal WG).
I'd separate the discussion in three parts that
On Sunday 30 June 2013 22:48:50 Ivan Čukić wrote:
+1 ABI should be the same in both versions (unlike gcc's std::list iirc)
Just wondering, was this email as OK, I see where you come from, or was
it
I think we should discuss this at Akademy (with Aaron, Martin and Marco as a
minimal
I don't agree that these /additional/ features are about the api.
algorithm is an (IMO) immensely useful, especially with lambdas and
std::bind for actual non exposed parts.
Well, yes that's all useful. That's the type of things I'd like to use
everywhere too. I badly worded that above
On Friday 28 June 2013 08:13:32 Kevin Ottens wrote:
Git commit 597397b41f5450f24ddc784e0faa13133fed6bd5 by Kevin Ottens.
Committed on 28/06/2013 at 08:07.
Pushed by ervin into branch 'master'.
Revert Enabling C++11 flags for clang and gcc
This request [1] got a green light by Aaron [2] and
On Friday 28 June 2013 11:02:25 Ivan Čukić wrote:
On Friday 28 June 2013 08:13:32 Kevin Ottens wrote:
Git commit 597397b41f5450f24ddc784e0faa13133fed6bd5 by Kevin Ottens.
Committed on 28/06/2013 at 08:07.
Pushed by ervin into branch 'master'.
Revert Enabling C++11 flags for clang and
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Kevin Ottens er...@kde.org wrote:
On Friday 28 June 2013 11:02:25 Ivan Čukić wrote:
On Friday 28 June 2013 08:13:32 Kevin Ottens wrote:
Git commit 597397b41f5450f24ddc784e0faa13133fed6bd5 by Kevin Ottens.
Committed on 28/06/2013 at 08:07.
Pushed by ervin
On Friday 28 June 2013 07:33:43 Shaun Reich wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Kevin Ottens er...@kde.org wrote:
On Friday 28 June 2013 11:02:25 Ivan Čukić wrote:
On Friday 28 June 2013 08:13:32 Kevin Ottens wrote:
Git commit 597397b41f5450f24ddc784e0faa13133fed6bd5 by Kevin Ottens.
Isn't the point of a dependency (on C++11) to make it required?
Well, we have required and optional dependencies. C++11 is not special in
that regard, we can make it either required or optional.
So, essentially, the issue is that Plasma keeps both the framework and the
shells in the same
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Aaron J. Seigo ase...@kde.org wrote:
On Friday, June 28, 2013 13:08:49 Kevin Ottens wrote:
Just to clarify: It's not a no-no to using C++11, it's to make sure we're
able to build without them.
We have no interest in trying to maintain a build that does not
On Friday, June 28, 2013 13:08:49 Kevin Ottens wrote:
Just to clarify: It's not a no-no to using C++11, it's to make sure we're
able to build without them.
We have no interest in trying to maintain a build that does not require C++11.
There are too many useful features that we can take
On Friday 28 June 2013 20:52:59 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
On Friday, June 28, 2013 13:08:49 Kevin Ottens wrote:
Just to clarify: It's not a no-no to using C++11, it's to make sure
we're able to build without them.
We have no interest in trying to maintain a build that does not require
C++11.
such a premise VS2012 has a very partial C++11 support, Android NDK uses
gcc 4.6 by default (apparently you can upgrade that to 4.7 but we can't
expect third parties to do it by default, means partial support in both
cases), BB10 cross- compiler doesn't properly support C++11. We're not
The
On Friday 28 June 2013 23:13:34 Ivan Čukić wrote:
such a premise VS2012 has a very partial C++11 support, Android NDK uses
gcc 4.6 by default (apparently you can upgrade that to 4.7 but we can't
expect third parties to do it by default, means partial support in both
cases), BB10 cross-
OK, then we got a misunderstanding somewhere...
Using those Q_* macros is perfectly fine (and even encouraged, we already
use Q_DECL_OVERRIDE and I'd like to see more Q_NULLPTR for instance). They
enable exactly what I was describing earlier: works without C++11 support,
you get extras
On Friday 28 June 2013 23:58:21 Ivan Čukić wrote:
OK, then we got a misunderstanding somewhere...
Using those Q_* macros is perfectly fine (and even encouraged, we already
use Q_DECL_OVERRIDE and I'd like to see more Q_NULLPTR for instance). They
enable exactly what I was describing
17 matches
Mail list logo
