On 06/03/15 09:54, "Marc Mutz" wrote:
>On Tuesday 03 March 2015 11:30:51 Guido Seifert wrote:
>> Why not make different example categories?
>
>a) because it's more work, less fun, and people don't work on examples
>anyway,
> but they might, when they can modernize them.
>b) because one reason w
On Tuesday 03 March 2015 11:30:51 Guido Seifert wrote:
> Why not make different example categories?
a) because it's more work, less fun, and people don't work on examples anyway,
but they might, when they can modernize them.
b) because one reason we want to have this is to experiment with C++11
On Tuesday 03 March 2015 10:38:22 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Yeah well, I think the above check "contains(QT_CONFIG, c++11)" won't
> > hurt.
> > I'd just do it globally in configure though (so that examples aren't
> > automatically build for older compilers), instead of black/whitelisting
> > singl
On Tuesday 03 March 2015 17:38:47 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 2015-03-03 16:49, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On Tuesday 03 March 2015 16:15:59 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> >> And on a different note... what about initializer lists? I literally
> >>
> >> just today was writing:
> >> QProcess process;
>
On 2015-03-03 16:49, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 March 2015 16:15:59 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> And on a different note... what about initializer lists? I literally
>> just today was writing:
>>
>> QProcess process;
>> process.start("cmd", {"arg", "arg", QString::number(value) ...});
On Tuesday 03 March 2015 16:15:59 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> > Unlikely, we don't create new template classes in our examples. There are
> > also very few classes in the Qt sources that would benefit from it.
>
> I can think of a few that *might*... QString::arg,
I have a replacement for QString::a
On 2015-03-03 14:43, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 March 2015 12:57:55 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> On 2015-03-03 05:17, Koehne Kai wrote:
>>> What's missing from the list IMO is using QObject::connect with
>>> PointerToMemberFunction instead of SIGNAL(), SLOT().
>> I thought that was just ne
On Tuesday 03 March 2015 12:57:55 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 2015-03-03 05:17, Koehne Kai wrote:
> > What's missing from the list IMO is using QObject::connect with
> > PointerToMemberFunction instead of SIGNAL(), SLOT().
> I thought that was just new in Qt5, and that it does *not* require
> C++11
On Tuesday 03 March 2015 10:17:45 Koehne Kai wrote:
> > Make it unconditional and let people disable with -nomake tests or -no-
> > compile-examples if they have older compilers.
>
> Yeah well, I think the above check "contains(QT_CONFIG, c++11)" won't hurt.
> I'd just do it globally in configure
On 2015-03-03 05:17, Koehne Kai wrote:
> What's missing from the list IMO is using QObject::connect with
> PointerToMemberFunction instead of SIGNAL(), SLOT().
I thought that was just new in Qt5, and that it does *not* require
C++11. The documentation seems to imply so, anyway:
"The number of
On 3 Mar 2015, at 11:30, Guido Seifert wrote:
>
>> Make it unconditional and let people disable with -nomake tests or
>> -no-compile-examples if they have older compilers.
>
> Why not make different example categories? One category, which has the same
> policies as Qt itself, i.e. it compile
> Make it unconditional and let people disable with -nomake tests or
> -no-compile-examples if they have older compilers.
Why not make different example categories? One category, which has the same
policies as Qt itself, i.e. it compiles
with all the compilers Qt supports. Additionally a categ
> -Original Message-
> From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=theqtcompany.com@qt-
> [...]
> > 2.) Coding convention for C++11 constructs and set of permitted features:
> > https://wiki.qt.io/index.php?title=Coding_Conventions#Conventions_for_
> > C.2B.2
> > B11_usage
>
> I didn't know thi
On Monday 02 March 2015 16:20:29 Blasche Alexander wrote:
> The suggestion was/is to permit the usage of C++11 in Qt examples. Here is a
> concrete set of suggestions to address the open issues and consequences:
>
> 1.) Use C++11 for examples starting with Qt 5.6
I'd say "use C++11 where it makes
Hi,
the astute readers who have followed and endured some of the long C++11 related
threads on this mailing list may have noticed that one important suggestion was
made with regards to future C++11 usage in Qt.
The suggestion was/is to permit the usage of C++11 in Qt examples. Here is a
concre
15 matches
Mail list logo
