> From: Joerg Bornemann
> On 05/03/2012 16:49, ext BRM wrote:
>
>> So why start a situation that could lead to that kind of interdependencies
> within Qt or Qt applications?
>
> I wasn't proposing anything like this; was just curious. :)
> I'm strictly against having a global include-all-the-
On 05/03/2012 16:49, ext BRM wrote:
> So why start a situation that could lead to that kind of interdependencies
> within Qt or Qt applications?
I wasn't proposing anything like this; was just curious. :)
I'm strictly against having a global include-all-the-stuff-of-Qt header
and I don't think
> From: Joerg Bornemann
>On 01/03/2012 16:43, ext BRM wrote:
>
>> For years, Microsoft advocated the use of simply including the "windows.h"
>> header file. However, this ultimately led to a very very big problem - one
>> that ended up with circular dependencies between user space and kernel
>
On 01/03/2012 16:43, ext BRM wrote:
> For years, Microsoft advocated the use of simply including the "windows.h"
> header file. However, this ultimately led to a very very big problem - one
> that ended up with circular dependencies between user space and kernel space.
> It also cost them a lot
On 1 March 2012 16:09, BRM wrote:
>> From: Olivier Goffart
>
>>On Thursday 01 March 2012 12:44:47 Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
>>> Sadly, considering the slowness of g++ and the complexity of Qt, I doubt
>>> this is a reasonable approach for Qt.
>>That's what pre-compiled header are for.
>
>
> Not e
> From: Olivier Goffart
>On Thursday 01 March 2012 12:44:47 Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
>> Sadly, considering the slowness of g++ and the complexity of Qt, I doubt
>> this is a reasonable approach for Qt.
>That's what pre-compiled header are for.
Not everyone uses pre-compiled headers, nor should
On Thursday 01 March 2012 12:44:47 Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
> Sadly, considering the slowness of g++ and the complexity of Qt, I doubt
> this is a reasonable approach for Qt.
That's what pre-compiled header are for.
___
Development mailing list
Devel
> From: Thiago Macieira
>On quinta-feira, 1 de março de 2012 12.44.47, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
>> > According to the book it is. But in practice it happens all the time, and
>> > we know it.
>>
>> To which book? C++ compilers and IDEs give zero support in enforcing
>> direct includes. Consider
On quinta-feira, 1 de março de 2012 12.44.47, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
> > According to the book it is. But in practice it happens all the time, and
> > we know it.
>
> To which book? C++ compilers and IDEs give zero support in enforcing
> direct includes. Considering the mess GNU libc headers are
Am Donnerstag, den 01.03.2012, 11:27 + schrieb lars.kn...@nokia.com:
> On 3/1/12 11:02 AM, "ext Thiago Macieira"
> wrote:
>
> >On quinta-feira, 1 de março de 2012 08.22.42, lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I've seen a few examples where people are cleaning up includes in header
On 3/1/12 11:02 AM, "ext Thiago Macieira"
wrote:
>On quinta-feira, 1 de março de 2012 08.22.42, lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've seen a few examples where people are cleaning up includes in header
>> (public or private but exported to other modules) files, as e.g.
>> http://coderevi
On quinta-feira, 1 de março de 2012 08.22.42, lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've seen a few examples where people are cleaning up includes in header
> (public or private but exported to other modules) files, as e.g.
> http://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,18095.
>
> While they are correc
Hi,
I've seen a few examples where people are cleaning up includes in header
(public or private but exported to other modules) files, as e.g.
http://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,18095.
While they are correct in theory, they cause problems in practice and
provide close to 0 (in fact negative)
13 matches
Mail list logo
