On Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 15:41:18 CET Marc Mutz wrote:
> On 2017-12-01 15:21, Marc Mutz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just realised: Since C++17, noexcept is part of the mangled name.
> > That means that adding noexcept to an exported function is BiC now!
>
> This is not correct, after all. The na
On Samstag, 2. Dezember 2017 17:48:19 CET Marc Mutz wrote:
> If that analyis were true, you'd need to explain why it is, then, that
> the Qt containers now have more or less the same API as std ones, when
> in Qt 1 they were very different. And why I keep needing to fight off
> QOptional. These are
>> . I would be fine having the same developer experience in C++
>
> even if I had to change name spaces and includes, but doesn't seem usual
>
> practice in C++.
>
> uh... ? I have been polyfilling optional, string_view, any, and variant for
> almost three years with boost, or std/experiment
> . I would be fine having the same developer experience in C++
even if I had to change name spaces and includes, but doesn't seem usual
practice in C++.
uh... ? I have been polyfilling optional, string_view, any, and variant for
almost three years with boost, or std/experimental/. The API is 99%
On Saturday 02 December 2017 19:11:23 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > > And, c'mon, std::optional's API is just not going to be topped by
> > > QOptional. What should they do? snake_case vs. camelCase? That's what
> > > we need to invest several man-days of development work in, to rename
> > > the funct
On 2017-12-02 18:54, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On 2 December 2017 at 18:48, Marc Mutz wrote:
If that analyis were true, you'd need to explain why it is, then, that
the
Qt containers now have more or less the same API as std ones, when in
Qt 1
they were very different. And why I keep needing to
