>> #include
>> instead of
>> #include
>
> It's the name of the class.
>
> Besides, C++98 standardised on having no suffixes back in 1997.
Ohso that's why one includes and not in
std C++ (I always wondered why they didn't just do it like how it is
in C).
Thanks for this bit!
-mandeep
Em sex 04 abr 2014, às 08:07:22, Yves Bailly escreveu:
> Greetings all,
>
> At the time of the move from Qt3 to Qt4, does anyone remember the reasons
> given for using headers without extensions? e.g.
> #include
> instead of
> #include
It's the name of the class.
Besides, C++98 standardised on
Greetings all,
At the time of the move from Qt3 to Qt4, does anyone remember the reasons given
for using headers without extensions? e.g.
#include
instead of
#include
I think I read something explaining that choice at the time, but I'm enable to
find it again...
Just curious, no intent to st
Hi,
It's not being ignored, it's just unknown to the others.
You need to add reviewers to your patch
You can see here how to do it
http://qt-project.org/wiki/Gerrit-Introduction#35584fc6462d3d2171b795208c180ac5
Regards
Samuel
On 4 avr. 2014, at 07:34, Martin Koller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wante
Hi,
I wanted to contribute a small fix and put it already here:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,81261
but it's ignored, so I probably missed a step.
What should I do in addition so that a patch gets some attention ?
--
Best regards/Schöne Grüße
Martin
A: Because it breaks the logical s
On 2014-04-03 04:47, Thomas McGuire wrote:
> How about adding a "Versions" box to the sidebar that gives convenient
> links to all other versions of the QProcess documentation?
Yes, please; that's what Python does and it seems to work well. (You
could even add a cookie to always take the user to
FYI added backport to Gerrit at:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/82643
If there anything that stops us from backporting that?
Cheers,
--
Adam
Wiadomość napisana przez Kuba Ober w dniu 28 mar 2014, o
godz. 21:00:
> I confirm that this change is needed, and I have multiple workarounds for i
Em qui 03 abr 2014, às 10:12:27, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> the quoting mechanism is inspired by how *some* windows applications
> interpret quoting. but it is generally speaking just stupid.
> when i finally get to it, i want to deprecate this custom single-string
> mode in favor of accepting
Hello,
Now is a good time to sign up for the Qt Contributors' Summit in Berlin on
10-11th June.
The Summit is the annual event where Qt contributors get together and discuss
the state and future of the project. If you have contributed to Qt and are
interested in the future of the project, you
On 03-Apr-14 13:12, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> one could use "cmd /c echo hello" at least I do so, or this somehow bad?
>>
> it's a double-fail, because in addition to the weird echo behavior, you
> also have the even more weird cmd behavior (which can be modified
> further with the /s flag).
I
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 01:28:02PM +0300, Damian Ivanov wrote:
> one could use "cmd /c echo hello" at least I do so, or this somehow bad?
>
it's a double-fail, because in addition to the weird echo behavior, you
also have the even more weird cmd behavior (which can be modified
further with the /s
On 03-Apr-14 12:28, Damian Ivanov wrote:
> one could use "cmd /c echo hello" at least I do so, or this somehow bad?
You can use that if you're completely sure that echo prints its
arguments verbatim. I for one wouldn't be surprised if there's some
weird edge case where it transforms the passed
one could use "cmd /c echo hello" at least I do so, or this somehow bad?
2014-04-03 12:36 GMT+03:00 Joerg Bornemann :
> On 03-Apr-14 02:34, Sze Howe Koh wrote:
>
>>> Nor on Windows's prompt:
>>> C:\>echo """hello"""
>>> """hello"""
>
> Checking arguments with the echo shell built-in on Windows is
On 3 April 2014 09:42, Heikkinen Jani wrote:
> We are about to start the "Qt 5.3.0" release as agreed in [1], which means
> that:
>
>
>
> - We plan to do a fast-forward merge from 'stable' into 'release' branch
>
> on April 10th.
Given that we're post-beta, can we do the header diff review before
On 03-Apr-14 02:34, Sze Howe Koh wrote:
>> Nor on Windows's prompt:
>> C:\>echo """hello"""
>> """hello"""
Checking arguments with the echo shell built-in on Windows is not a good
idea. It behaves (not even) slightly different from real executables.
Create an executable that prints its argument
Thomas McGuire schreef op 3-4-2014 10:47:
> Hi,
>
> On Thursday 03 April 2014 08:02:16 Rutledge Shawn wrote:
>> On 2 Apr 2014, at 6:07 PM, Ariel Molina wrote:
>>> The current state of Qt docs is very sad, making online searches near to
>>> useless. All Google searches refer either to broken pages,
Hi Thiago,
at most the struct is defined, i think sometime there was even a fordward
declare of the time function. Short version you have to take a different
codepath if you need that for ce. Have a look in qdatetime.cpp. Basically you
would use a system call to get the time in a different forma
Hi,
On Thursday 03 April 2014 08:02:16 Rutledge Shawn wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2014, at 6:07 PM, Ariel Molina wrote:
> > The current state of Qt docs is very sad, making online searches near to
> > useless. All Google searches refer either to broken pages, to 4.x doc
> > pages, to incomplete 5.0 unstable
> -Original Message-
> [...]
> it's not windows-only.
> the quoting mechanism is inspired by how *some* windows applications
> interpret quoting. but it is generally speaking just stupid.
> when i finally get to it, i want to deprecate this custom single-string mode
> in
> favor of accep
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 08:34:20AM +0800, Sze Howe Koh wrote:
> On 3 April 2014 06:23, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Nor on Windows's prompt:
> > C:\>echo """hello"""
> > """hello"""
> >
> > That commit has been there since the Qt public history started. It's even
> > documented as such (I had to loo
Hi,
On 03/04/14 09:53, "Sergio Ahumada" wrote:
>On 03.04.2014 09:42, Heikkinen Jani wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We are about to start the "Qt 5.3.0" release as agreed in [1], which
>> means that:
>>
>> - We plan to do a fast-forward merge from 'stable' into 'release' branch
>> on April 10th.
>
>Hi,
>
On 03.04.2014 09:42, Heikkinen Jani wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are about to start the "Qt 5.3.0" release as agreed in [1], which
> means that:
>
> - We plan to do a fast-forward merge from 'stable' into 'release' branch
> on April 10th.
Hi,
I think I got lost somewhere. I thought we were going to create
Hi,
We are about to start the "Qt 5.3.0" release as agreed in [1], which means that:
- We plan to do a fast-forward merge from 'stable' into 'release' branch
on April 10th.
- After April 10th any changes that are required for 5.3.0 needs to be
pushed to the 'release' branch. So if your changes a
23 matches
Mail list logo
