On 16 September 2015 at 15:46, Jake Petroules
wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 2015, at 9:07 PM, Sze Howe Koh wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > There's a list of platform-specific functions from Qt 4:
> > http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/exportedfunctions.html
> >
> > It looks like most of these functions are now gone. T
On Friday 09 October 2015 10:40:44 charleyb123 . wrote:
> A couple weeks have gone by, and I've not seen "Meeting Minutes" from
> recent release-team-meetings.
>
> Do we have a feel for timing? (I'm in a similar scenario as Gerhard.)
There was no meeting this week because of the Qt World Summit.
On 2015-10-09 11:51, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Friday October 09 2015 13:58:37 Pocheptsov Timur wrote:
>> And yes, void * in C++ can be indeed considered generic, because
>> you can do this:
>>
>> int * p = ... void * pv = p;
>
> Coming from C I have some trouble with that concept of generic
>
>
> On Wednesday 23 September 2015 08:37:54 Heikkinen Jani wrote:
> > We are targeting to release Qt 5.5.1 as soon as possible, most probably
> > during next week.
>
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Gerhard Scheikl
wrote:
> Hi
>
> Could you please give us a new estimate?
> Unfortunately, we rely
Well, that's a static type system.
I would explain this 'asymmetry' as:
some_pointer_type -> pointer_to_void conversion is safe (given that it's
possible at all, since not every pointer type can be implicitly converted to
void *).
while hypothetical (non-existent) implicit
pointer_to_void ->
On Friday October 09 2015 13:58:37 Pocheptsov Timur wrote:
> if NULL was (void *)0 - you'd have a compilation error in C++, since there is
> no such implicit conversion.
>
> And yes, void * in C++ can be indeed considered generic, because you can do
> this:
>
> int * p = ...
> void * pv = p;
In C++ you can do:
int * p = NULL;
double * d = NULL;
if NULL was (void *)0 - you'd have a compilation error in C++, since there is
no such implicit conversion.
And yes, void * in C++ can be indeed considered generic, because you can do
this:
int * p = ...
void * pv = p;
Thiago Macieira wrote:
I missed this message.
> "The macro NULL is an implementation-defined C++ null pointer constant in this
> International Standard(180)"
>
> And the note reads
>
> "180)Possible definitions include 0 and 0L, but not (void*)0."
Does the note say why or is it just an arbitr
Hi,
I've been doing release builds of Qt 4.8.7 that do contain debug information.
I'm not aware of any relevant configure flags for Qt 4 like Qt 5 has, so I'm
setting -g in the *C*FLAGS env. variables.
That works, but on OS X I find that ObjC++ files (*.mm) are compiled without -g
and thus lac
On Thursday 08 October 2015 11:55:52 André Somers wrote:
[...]
> Nowadays, for code that you won't need to compile with non C++/11
> complient compilers, I'd recommend to use nullptr instead. At least,
> nullptr will always be interpretted as a pointer.
[...]
Seconded. I'd go so far as to use null
10 matches
Mail list logo
