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 require C++11. > There are too many useful features that we can take advantage of and the > overhead of working around such issues and / or having multiple compile-time > paths is not of interest to us.
Yeah, it'll be an absolute nightmare to everywhere we use C++11, to somehow make it build with non-C++11. Such a thing would even be entirely impossible in the case of e.g. auto, where the information is simply missing, so horrible macro hell isn't even possible in such scenarios. Essentially saying "all C++11 code has to be able to compile without it" is mostly just saying "all C++11 code must not use C++11". /me wonders if anyone would even run plasma on such "ancient compilers"... -- Shaun Reich, KDE Software Developer (kde.org) _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
