On quarta-feira, 8 de fevereiro de 2017 23:52:03 PST Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Marc Mutz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just filed https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79433
> > complaining that __has_include returns true for headers which then, when
> > included, #error out about the wrong C++ sta
On quinta-feira, 9 de fevereiro de 2017 01:11:18 PST Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> Il 08/02/2017 23:43, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
> > I'd rather not and just suppress functionality until the compiler gets
> > their act together. Our users should file bugs with their vendors instead
> > to pressure t
Il 08/02/2017 23:43, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
> I'd rather not and just suppress functionality until the compiler gets their
> act together. Our users should file bugs with their vendors instead to
> pressure
> them to change their way.
They did and the result was a WONTFIX:
> https://conne
Marc Mutz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just filed https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79433
> complaining that __has_include returns true for headers which then, when
> included, #error out about the wrong C++ standard used.
In my opinion, the problem is sd-6 defining feature macros in the header
On quarta-feira, 8 de fevereiro de 2017 20:40:04 PST Marc Mutz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just filed https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79433
> complaining that __has_include returns true for headers which then, when
> included, #error out about the wrong C++ standard used.
I'm with you. SD-6 s
On quarta-feira, 8 de fevereiro de 2017 22:33:25 PST Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> Of course, MSVC does not bump __cplusplus (still 199711L). So perhaps
> those version checks need to become Qt macros?
I'd rather not and just suppress functionality until the compiler gets their
act together. Our use
Il 08/02/2017 20:40, Marc Mutz ha scritto:
> I, however, intended to use the same feature for and
> , which don't seem to have SD-6 feature test
> macros (or else define them in the header which you're not allowed to
> include to check), but since we compile qmake only in C++11, not higher,
>
On quarta-feira, 8 de fevereiro de 2017 10:52:10 PST Edward Welbourne wrote:
> ... which may well have been the intent, but the thing about Rules,
> Policies, Laws and Constitutions is that they have to actually *say*
> what they mean
That's the difference between the Roman Civil Code / BGB-style
Hi,
I just filed https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79433
complaining that __has_include returns true for headers which then, when
included, #error out about the wrong C++ standard used.
We use this mechanism for at least , and are either about to
ship it or already do. That's fine
I had remarked:
>> That shall complement Soroush Rabiei's work on the C++ side:
Hamed Masafi (30 January 2017 21:07) replied:
> Yes, that's right. I'm trying to port Soroush's calendar mechanism to
> qml side of Qt.
Good.
>> If I understand Lars correctly, he prefers an API where the calendar
>>
Soroush Rabiei (30 January 2017 11:04) wrote:
> Speaking of the API, I wish to share an idea about not to put calendar
> implementations in a plugin subsystem.
I should clarify: when I spoke of calendar systems in plugins, I wasn't
suggesting we should do that as the normal mode for commonly-used
Sorry to have left this thread dangling for so long.
A vast flood of code-review came my way ...
Now to work my way back through the thread, staring at the end,
so all in JavaScript land:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017, at 09:07 PM, Hamed Masafi wrote:
>> My prefer option is form (3)
>> We can add an enumer
Am 07.02.2017 um 13:03 schrieb Edward Welbourne:
[snip]
>> Here's my change to the Wiki page:
>> https://wiki.qt.io/index.php?title=The_Qt_Governance_Model&diff=29866&oldid=29555
>>
>> I doubt I'll get round to QUIPping it any time soon - any volunteers ?
Robert Löhning (8 February 2017 14:20) rep
Am 07.02.2017 um 13:03 schrieb Edward Welbourne:
> Lars Knoll (7 February 2017 12:45) wrote:
>> The way we have been drawing our governance model as a pyramid had
>> always implied this for me. But I can see that it’s not explicitly
>> mentioned in the wiki page.
>
> Indeed, the "Becoming a Mainta
On Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2017 10:52:10 CET Edward Welbourne wrote:
> ... which may well have been the intent, but the thing about Rules,
> Policies, Laws and Constitutions is that they have to actually *say*
> what they mean,
And you can say the same about the code in any programming language.
>
On terça-feira, 7 de fevereiro de 2017 12:03:47 PST Edward Welbourne wrote:
>> Indeed, the "Becoming a Maintainer" section did in fact only permit
>> us to nominate existing Approvers as Maintainers; which we have
>> violated repeatedly.
Thiago Macieira (7 February 2017 16:54)
> I read that as nom
Hi everybody,
I guess all of you know the frustration about not getting your change in
because an unrelated autotest failed, or due to changes in other modules
breaking things for you.
After quite a few discussions, we’ve now decided that we will try to tackle
this and hopefully make the whole
17 matches
Mail list logo
