> Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 01:14:52 +0200 > Subject: Re: C++11 > From: kretschm...@kde.org > To: amarok-devel@kde.org > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Matěj Laitl <ma...@laitl.cz> wrote: > > On 8. 5. 2013 Patrick von Reth wrote: > >> For the official builds we are still using gcc 4.4.7 and we probably won't > >> switch to 4.8 before we switch to qt5. But for a amarok only build, I > >> already did some testing and got a working build with gcc 4.8. For msvc, we > >> are currently using msvc10, and won't switch to msvc12(which has c++11 > >> support) before we switch to qt5. Cheers > > > > So I think this is the answer: C++11 only as soon Windows guys will support > > it. > > It's not really clear to me what Patrick meant to say. Is our build > the "official" one? If not, how is this official build relevant to us?With > the official builds I meant the one we are releasing as KDE Windows.But for > the amarok installer I could use a different compiler.Also the need of c++ > x11 could motivate us to move to the new compiler a bit earlier.And as it > would only be amarok for the beginning that would require c++11 there would > be no harm done to the guis providing Kontact, Calligra etc.
> > My initial interpretation was: "Amarok is built with GCC, and I've > already tested it with GCC 4.8. It worked, so we can probably use > C++11." > > > Another (and IMO important) benefit of C++11 is make-coding-fun one. Trying > > new > > things is fun and C++11 is sexy, perhaps Markey would enjoy coding on Amarok > > much more if he could use C++11. > > That's a good point. Also, gaining practical experience is useful in > other places. > > >> With some Lambda usage, it becomes a good deal more readable and > >> pleasant to work with, and less error prone. This is how it could look > >> instead: > >> > >> From 7cca04eb25169e5befb3e5d6a1290795c3e651b8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > >> From: Mark Kretschmann <kretschm...@kde.org> > >> Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 19:08:24 +0200 > >> Subject: [PATCH] Replace redundant code with one Lambda function. > > > > This change doesn't really need a lambda support at all, just deduplicate > > the > > code into a helper function, it is only slightly less elegant. Please do it. > > Sure you could use a plain helper function here. But I find that in > such cases, where a helper is only called from one function, it makes > the code even less readable. The beauty of the lambda is that it can > remove redundancy, while at the same time keeping relevant code > together. > > -- > Mark Kretschmann > Amarok Developer > Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe > http://amarok.kde.org - http://fsfe.org > _______________________________________________ > Amarok-devel mailing list > Amarok-devel@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel
_______________________________________________ Amarok-devel mailing list Amarok-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel
