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
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 {
>
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
> > > > >
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
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
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
> > >
> > >
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
>
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
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
>
> /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
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
/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
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
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
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
15 matches
Mail list logo