But about the indirectly proposed \until command. What is it supposed to do?
Are we setting a policy of announcing the version when a class or function will
be removed?
From: Development on
behalf of Marc Mutz
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 1:19:07 AM
To: devel
On 2017-03-31 22:27, André Pönitz wrote:
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:56:53AM +0200, Marc Mutz wrote:
On Friday 31 March 2017 09:43:18 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> 31.03.2017, 10:38, "Marc Mutz" :
[...]
> > [1] even better than Qt's, these days, since cppreference.com
> > clearly shows what's avail
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:56:53AM +0200, Marc Mutz wrote:
> On Friday 31 March 2017 09:43:18 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> > 31.03.2017, 10:38, "Marc Mutz" :
> [...]
> > > [1] even better than Qt's, these days, since cppreference.com
> > > clearly shows what's available in which C++ version while Qt
> -Original Message-
s/MSVC2015/MSVC2013/g
> I just looked through the download statistics. MSVC2015 takes about 30% of all
> windows downloads and the Visual Studio Tools have a similar ratio. It might
> change once we have a MSVC2017 packages but right now I must say no,
> dropping M
On Friday 31 March 2017 16:24:37 Alex Blasche wrote:
> > -Original Message
> >
> > >> If we can drop MSVC 2013, too, we can start to use char16_t
> > >> unconditionlly, which will make QStringViewLiteral obsolete, as we can
> > >> just
> >
> > write u"foo"
> >
> > >> everywhere. It will
> -Original Message
> >> If we can drop MSVC 2013, too, we can start to use char16_t
> >> unconditionlly, which will make QStringViewLiteral obsolete, as we can just
> write u"foo"
> >> everywhere. It will also simplify a lot of other code that currently
> >> needs to fall back to wchar_t
On 2017-03-31, 9:17 AM, "Development on behalf of James McDonnell"
wrote:
>
>
>On 2017-03-31, 9:09 AM, "Development on behalf of Ville Voutilainen"
>ville.voutilai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 31 March 2017 at 15:48, Lars Knoll wrote:
>>> Hi Rafael,
>>>
>>> I¹d agree with you that it¹s too earl
On 2017-03-31, 9:09 AM, "Development on behalf of Ville Voutilainen"
wrote:
>On 31 March 2017 at 15:48, Lars Knoll wrote:
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>> I¹d agree with you that it¹s too early to drop QNX 6.6, even though I
>>understand that people would want to drop gcc 4.7. Is there a chance QNX
>>6.6 w
On 31 March 2017 at 15:48, Lars Knoll wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> I’d agree with you that it’s too early to drop QNX 6.6, even though I
> understand that people would want to drop gcc 4.7. Is there a chance QNX 6.6
> will get a toolchain update at some point?
Seems unlikely.
http://stackoverflow.c
Hi Rafael,
I’d agree with you that it’s too early to drop QNX 6.6, even though I
understand that people would want to drop gcc 4.7. Is there a chance QNX 6.6
will get a toolchain update at some point?
Lars
> On 31 Mar 2017, at 14:15, Rafael Roquetto wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Since Marc has alre
Hello,
Since Marc has already the subject of which compilers need to be supported for
5.10, I would like to take this opportunity to explicitly ask: what is our
take for QNX 6.6? Or even better, until which Qt release do we plan to support
it? I am currently working on ensuring QNX 7 at least buil
>But no \until. I try to put this in the docs, and sometimes I succeeded, but
>I've also been -1ed for trying already.
I have never been asked to add \until to qdoc.
martin
From: Development on
behalf of Marc Mutz
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 10:56:53 AM
To:
On Friday 31 March 2017 10:56:53 Marc Mutz wrote:
> But no \until. I try to put this in the docs, and sometimes I succeeded,
> but I've also been -1ed for trying already.
Before you ask: http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qsharedpointer.html#create-1 is a
successful attempt.
--
Marc Mutz | Senior Software
On Friday 31 March 2017 09:43:18 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> 31.03.2017, 10:38, "Marc Mutz" :
[...]
> > [1] even better than Qt's, these days, since cppreference.com clearly
> > shows what's available in which C++ version while Qt hides all but the
> > latest documentation, which only describes the
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:12:44 +0300
Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> 30.03.2017, 17:33, "Matthew Woehlke" :
> > On 2017-03-29 18:33, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> >> 30.03.2017, 00:17, "Philippe" :
> >>> And being able to use a QVector with O(1) by-value assigment, thanks to
> >>> COW, make it easy to
30.03.2017, 17:33, "Matthew Woehlke" :
> On 2017-03-29 18:33, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
>> 30.03.2017, 00:17, "Philippe" :
>>> And being able to use a QVector with O(1) by-value assigment, thanks to
>>> COW, make it easy to use QVectors "as primitive types", with no
>>> reasonning effort.
>>
31.03.2017, 10:38, "Marc Mutz" :
> On Friday 31 March 2017 08:57:50 Simon Hausmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> To me this appears to be comparing the questions that new learning
>> programmers have with questions of seasoned C++ programmers. I understand
>> that we should cater both with Qt, but the
On Friday 31 March 2017 08:57:50 Simon Hausmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> To me this appears to be comparing the questions that new learning
> programmers have with questions of seasoned C++ programmers. I understand
> that we should cater both with Qt, but the topic at this point of the
> thread is the fo
18 matches
Mail list logo
