Re: [Development] The future of QtAlgorithms

2012-01-30 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Friday, 27 de January de 2012 16.14.03, João Abecasis wrote: > Thoughts? Comments? After thinking some more about this, my current thinking is: drop the -no-stl support -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

Re: [Development] The future of QtAlgorithms

2012-01-30 Thread Leandro T. C. Melo
On 1/27/2012 4:14 PM, ext João Abecasis wrote: > - Provide standard-compliant implementations of the algorithms in > QtAlgorithms (no 'q' prefixes, no camel casing -- sorry!) and > selectively import those into a known namespace when QT_NO_STL is > defined: > > namespace QtPrivateStd { >

Re: [Development] The future of QtAlgorithms

2012-01-30 Thread André Pönitz
On Friday 27 January 2012 18:28:26 you wrote: > On Friday 27 January 2012 18:02:02 André Pönitz wrote: > > On Friday 27 January 2012 17:49:01 ext Jonas M. Gastal wrote: > > > On Friday 27 January 2012 09:42:19 Charley Bay wrote: > > > > > /me wonder why we still even care about QT_NO_STL > > > > >

Re: [Development] The future of QtAlgorithms

2012-01-27 Thread Robin Burchell
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Olivier Goffart wrote: > /me wonder why we still even care about QT_NO_STL I was originally on the side of caring about QT_NO_STL, but your message made me wonder (again) about just how necessary this is. I think the only target I'd consider really valid for this

Re: [Development] The future of QtAlgorithms

2012-01-27 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Friday, 27 de January de 2012 18.00.55, Olivier Goffart wrote: > On Friday 27 January 2012 17:32:28 Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Olivier Goffart wrote: > > > /me wonder why we still even care about QT_NO_STL > > > > Embedded? > > Care to elaborate? > > (I dese

Re: [Development] The future of QtAlgorithms

2012-01-27 Thread Olivier Goffart
On Friday 27 January 2012 18:02:02 André Pönitz wrote: > On Friday 27 January 2012 17:49:01 ext Jonas M. Gastal wrote: > > On Friday 27 January 2012 09:42:19 Charley Bay wrote: > > > > /me wonder why we still even care about QT_NO_STL > > > > > > > > > > > > Embedded? > > > > > > +1 > > > > > >

Re: [Development] The future of QtAlgorithms

2012-01-27 Thread André Pönitz
On Friday 27 January 2012 17:49:01 ext Jonas M. Gastal wrote: > On Friday 27 January 2012 09:42:19 Charley Bay wrote: > > > /me wonder why we still even care about QT_NO_STL > > > > > > > > > Embedded? > > > > +1 > > > > Further, half of C++ developers *hate* STL. (Long story, off-topic for >

Re: [Development] The future of QtAlgorithms

2012-01-27 Thread Olivier Goffart
On Friday 27 January 2012 17:32:28 Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Olivier Goffart wrote: > > /me wonder why we still even care about QT_NO_STL > > Embedded? Care to elaborate? (I deserved that response with my IRC syle message :-)) I mean webkit uses the stl, v8

Re: [Development] The future of QtAlgorithms

2012-01-27 Thread Jonas M. Gastal
On Friday 27 January 2012 09:42:19 Charley Bay wrote: > > /me wonder why we still even care about QT_NO_STL > > > > > > Embedded? > > +1 > > Further, half of C++ developers *hate* STL. (Long story, off-topic for > here.) > > --charley So? It's not like we are telling them to use, just having

Re: [Development] The future of QtAlgorithms

2012-01-27 Thread Charley Bay
> > /me wonder why we still even care about QT_NO_STL >> >> > Embedded? > +1 Further, half of C++ developers *hate* STL. (Long story, off-topic for here.) --charley ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/ma

Re: [Development] The future of QtAlgorithms

2012-01-27 Thread Pau Garcia i Quiles
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Olivier Goffart wrote: > /me wonder why we still even care about QT_NO_STL > > Embedded? -- Pau Garcia i Quiles http://www.elpauer.org (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer) ___ Development mailing list Dev

Re: [Development] The future of QtAlgorithms

2012-01-27 Thread Olivier Goffart
/me wonder why we still even care about QT_NO_STL ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] The future of QtAlgorithms

2012-01-27 Thread João Abecasis
Robin Burchell wrote: > 2012/1/27 João Abecasis : > > - Provide standard-compliant implementations of the algorithms in > > QtAlgorithms (no 'q' prefixes, no camel casing -- sorry!) and > > selectively import those into a known namespace when QT_NO_STL is > > defined: > > > >namespace QtPriva

Re: [Development] The future of QtAlgorithms

2012-01-27 Thread Robin Burchell
hello, 2012/1/27 João Abecasis : > - Provide standard-compliant implementations of the algorithms in > QtAlgorithms (no 'q' prefixes, no camel casing -- sorry!) and > selectively import those into a known namespace when QT_NO_STL is > defined: > >    namespace QtPrivateStd { >    #ifdef QT_NO_STL

[Development] The future of QtAlgorithms

2012-01-27 Thread João Abecasis
Hello everyone, [ The topic at hand was discussed on IRC this morning. Thiago agreed on the general idea/concept. We also agreed on bringing the discussion to the list. ] Qt has historically offered some common algorithms, arguably a very limited but still useful subset of what is available in th