> You are replacing a perl dependency by a boost one. I'm not sure which one is
> worse.
That is reference implementation only. It's far far away of needed
shape to replace the perl script.
Some functions (enumerate_files) were taken from other libraries
including boost.
On 14 March 2017 at 17:2
On Tuesday 14 March 2017 16:47:11 Thiago Macieira wrote:
[...]
> So, no, at this point qtbase has more activity in 5.8 than 5.9.
[...]
So, how about at least releasing a qtbase-only 5.8.1? :)
--
Marc Mutz | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company
Tel: +49-
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 08:54:06AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On terça-feira, 14 de março de 2017 02:33:44 PDT Simon Hausmann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > I understand that there are limitations (to put it mildly) regarding the use
> > of API from the C++ standard library in Qt API itself due
I feel the same: Let's limit our binary compatibility promise to the part that
we can control. That would be Qt itself.
Anyone attempting to build a system with a wider scope of binary compatibility
promises needs to also control the shipment of other components, such as
libstdc++/libc++, libgc
On terça-feira, 14 de março de 2017 09:01:25 PDT Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> Ahem, it's not like there weren't qualms about it, but doing it for
> std::string and std::list
> was eventually necessary. The libstdc++ developers (including myself)
> spend fair amounts
> of time and energy trying to avo
On 14 March 2017 at 17:54, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> I understand that there are limitations (to put it mildly) regarding the use
>> of API from the C++ standard library in Qt API itself due to the inability
>> to extend our binary compatibility promise. I'm curious though whether
>> std::function
On terça-feira, 14 de março de 2017 03:32:39 PDT Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > I understand that we permit the use of std::function in Windows specific
> > API of QProcess, which may or may not be different. However I'm curious
> > about this in the context of API that is intended to be fully
> > cros
On terça-feira, 14 de março de 2017 02:33:44 PDT Simon Hausmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I understand that there are limitations (to put it mildly) regarding the use
> of API from the C++ standard library in Qt API itself due to the inability
> to extend our binary compatibility promise. I'm curious th
On terça-feira, 14 de março de 2017 07:29:00 PDT Marc Mutz wrote:
> On Monday 13 March 2017 12:33:32 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > neglecting 5.8 (for two months now)
>
> $ git log --ancestry-path 'gerrit/5.8@{2 month ago}..gerrit/5.8' \
>--oneline | wc -l
> 402
> $ git log --ancestry-pa
On Donnerstag, 9. März 2017 21:19:51 CET Egor Pugin wrote:
> Hello again,
>
> Pretty long discussion is moved to build systems.
> Here are some my general notes and brief presentation of my project.
>
> 1. For those who may be interested - my simple implementation of
> syncqt.pl in C++ available
On Monday 13 March 2017 12:33:32 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> neglecting 5.8 (for two months now)
$ git log --ancestry-path 'gerrit/5.8@{2 month ago}..gerrit/5.8' \
--oneline | wc -l
402
$ git log --ancestry-path 'gerrit/5.9@{2 month ago}..gerrit/5.9' \
--oneline | wc -l
warning: Log
On Monday 13 March 2017 12:33:32 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 01:38:47PM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote:
> > On Wednesday 01 March 2017 13:13:17 Lars Knoll wrote:
> > > > Let’s conclude this topic now by moving on towards 5.9 as Tuukka
> > > > proposed. After some thinking I also agr
On Dienstag, 14. März 2017 10:33:44 CET Simon Hausmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I understand that there are limitations (to put it mildly) regarding the use
> of API from the C++ standard library in Qt API itself due to the inability
> to extend our binary compatibility promise. I'm curious though whet
Hi,
I understand that there are limitations (to put it mildly) regarding the use of
API from the C++ standard library in Qt API itself due to the inability to
extend our binary compatibility promise. I'm curious though whether
std::function falls under the same umbrella?
I understand that we
14 matches
Mail list logo