On Friday 17 October 2014 17:02:04 Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Hi,
tl;dr; We have found the same problem in Debian, but steveire told us that the
idea of those CMake files is to provide a way to find the plugins if a
developer is doing it's own installer.
So far our solution has been to not ship *Plu
On Friday 17 October 2014 19:26:56 Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
> > Shoot the developer who abused the API.
> >
> > If the function accepts enum values 1 and 2 and you pass a 3, you deserve
> > the undefined behaviour.
> >
> > That is the same as passing a bool that doesn't contain exactly values 0
> On 17 Oct 2014, at 19:26, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
>
>
>
>> Am 17.10.2014 um 18:31 schrieb Thiago Macieira:
>>> On Friday 17 October 2014 13:06:39 Milian Wolff wrote:
>>> enum Foo {
>>> Bar = 1, Baz = 2
>>> };
>>>
>>> Foo foo = static_cast(3);
>>>
>>> Now what do you do without a defau
Am 17.10.2014 um 18:31 schrieb Thiago Macieira:
> On Friday 17 October 2014 13:06:39 Milian Wolff wrote:
>> enum Foo {
>> Bar = 1, Baz = 2
>> };
>>
>> Foo foo = static_cast(3);
>>
>> Now what do you do without a default clause?
>
> Shoot the developer who abused the API.
>
> If the function accep
On Friday 17 October 2014 13:06:39 Milian Wolff wrote:
> enum Foo {
> Bar = 1, Baz = 2
> };
>
> Foo foo = static_cast(3);
>
> Now what do you do without a default clause?
Shoot the developer who abused the API.
If the function accepts enum values 1 and 2 and you pass a 3, you deserve the
undef
Some tests fails even the patches that we are trying to push are not released.
Check https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/97244 and
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/96681
Cheers,
BogDan.
From: Sarajärvi Tony
To: BogDan ; Qt Development Group
Sent: Fr
Hi
What exactly is broken?
-T
From: development-bounces+tony.sarajarvi=theqtcompany@qt-project.org
[mailto:development-bounces+tony.sarajarvi=theqtcompany@qt-project.org] On
Behalf Of BogDan
Sent: 17. lokakuuta 2014 10:54
To: Qt Development Group
Subject: [Development] CI broken again
Am 17.10.2014 um 13:16 schrieb Kurt Pattyn:
>
>> On 17 Oct 2014, at 12:54, Sean Harmer wrote:
>>
>> On 17/10/2014 11:44, Bo Thorsen wrote:
>>> Den 17-10-2014 12:22, Julien Blanc skrev:
On 17/10/2014 10:15, Christian Kandeler wrote:
> On 10/17/2014 08:48 AM, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
>> As
On Wednesday 15 October 2014 10:59:41 Bo Thorsen wrote:
> Oh, come on. It's just one example of one bad rule. And even if you
> don't accept my example for it, I can just give you another.
>
> I have a base class that declares an interface for subclasses. One
> method requires that the subclass lo
On Friday 17 October 2014 11:31:10 Sumedha Widyadharma wrote:
> Do you think it would be possible to use run-time introspection à la
> QtWebChannel and dynamic signals/slots to get rid of the pre-processor?
(see: http://doc.qt.digia.com/qq/qq16-dynamicqobject.html)
I can't speak to QtWebC
Christian,
the problem is often when your software has to be integrated into other
software and systems, which is almost always the case in life-critical systems.
If your software is controlling a critical component like an X-ray beamer for
instance, you’d better be prepared for all kinds of rub
> On 17 Oct 2014, at 12:54, Sean Harmer wrote:
>
> On 17/10/2014 11:44, Bo Thorsen wrote:
>> Den 17-10-2014 12:22, Julien Blanc skrev:
>>> On 17/10/2014 10:15, Christian Kandeler wrote:
On 10/17/2014 08:48 AM, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
> As we are developing for aerospace, avionics, defence an
On 10/17/2014 01:06 PM, Milian Wolff wrote:
> I think you are missing something:
>
> enum Foo {
> Bar = 1, Baz = 2
> };
>
> Foo foo = static_cast(3);
If you start to guard against this kind of stuff, where does it end?
void f(void *p);
f(reinterpret_cast(5));
Is f supposed to catch that?
Chri
On Friday 17 October 2014 12:44:09 Bo Thorsen wrote:
> Den 17-10-2014 12:22, Julien Blanc skrev:
> > On 17/10/2014 10:15, Christian Kandeler wrote:
> >> On 10/17/2014 08:48 AM, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
> >>> As we are developing for aerospace, avionics, defence and healthcare, we
> >>> are confronted on
On 17/10/2014 11:44, Bo Thorsen wrote:
> Den 17-10-2014 12:22, Julien Blanc skrev:
>> On 17/10/2014 10:15, Christian Kandeler wrote:
>>> On 10/17/2014 08:48 AM, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
As we are developing for aerospace, avionics, defence and healthcare, we
are confronted on a daily basis wit
Den 17-10-2014 12:22, Julien Blanc skrev:
> On 17/10/2014 10:15, Christian Kandeler wrote:
>> On 10/17/2014 08:48 AM, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
>>> As we are developing for aerospace, avionics, defence and healthcare, we
>>> are confronted on a daily basis with a lot of very stringent rules that we
>>>
On 17/10/2014 10:15, Christian Kandeler wrote:
> On 10/17/2014 08:48 AM, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
>> As we are developing for aerospace, avionics, defence and healthcare, we are
>> confronted on a daily basis with a lot of very stringent rules that we have
>> to comply with (irrespective if some people
On Friday 17 October 2014 12:02:12 Sumedha Widyadharma wrote:
> On 17.10.2014 11:50, Milian Wolff wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Qt RemoteObjects is very different from Qt WebChannel - it gives you a
> > typesafe C++ interface. Qt WebChannel does some similar things but only
> > constructs a dynamic JavaScr
On 17.10.2014 11:50, Milian Wolff wrote:
[...]
> Qt RemoteObjects is very different from Qt WebChannel - it gives you a
> typesafe C++ interface. Qt WebChannel does some similar things but only
> constructs a dynamic JavaScript object via introspection. There is no way to
> use that directly fro
On Friday 17 October 2014 11:31:10 Sumedha Widyadharma wrote:
> Hi,
>
> cool stuff :)
>
> Do you think it would be possible to use run-time introspection à la
> QtWebChannel and dynamic signals/slots to get rid of the pre-processor?
> (see: http://doc.qt.digia.com/qq/qq16-dynamicqobject.html)
>
Hi,
cool stuff :)
Do you think it would be possible to use run-time introspection à la
QtWebChannel and dynamic signals/slots to get rid of the pre-processor?
(see: http://doc.qt.digia.com/qq/qq16-dynamicqobject.html)
I've had ideas like that for a QtWebChannel C++ client library. Haven't tried
Hi,
The Qt5.4.0 beta is now released, see
http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2014/10/17/qt-5-4-beta-available/
Big thanks for everyone to make this happen!
Best regards,
Jani Heikkinen
Release Manager | The Qt Company
The Qt Company / Digia Finland Ltd, Elektroniikkatie 10, 90590 Oulu, Finland
Ema
> On 17 Oct 2014, at 10:15, Christian Kandeler
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/17/2014 08:48 AM, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
>> As we are developing for aerospace, avionics, defence and healthcare, we are
>> confronted on a daily basis with a lot of very stringent rules that we have
>> to comply with (irrespectiv
On 10/17/2014 08:48 AM, Kurt Pattyn wrote:
> As we are developing for aerospace, avionics, defence and healthcare, we are
> confronted on a daily basis with a lot of very stringent rules that we have
> to comply with (irrespective if some people might find these rules outdated,
> stupid, ridicul
On 17 Oct 2014, at 09:18, Knoll Lars wrote:
> It has always been our goal to keep the public headers as clean as
> possible. So removing a few more cases where they can cause warnings is in
> principle a good goal. The main place to be careful is (as Thiago said),
> if the changes make the heade
Hello,
It seems that CI is broken for a few days, is anyone working on it? When
should we expect a fix?
Thanks!
Cheers,
BogDan.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
It has always been our goal to keep the public headers as clean as
possible. So removing a few more cases where they can cause warnings is in
principle a good goal. The main place to be careful is (as Thiago said),
if the changes make the headers significantly less readable. I’d also like
to avoid
27 matches
Mail list logo
