Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 March 2015 19:40:52 Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 17 March 2015 09:40:08 Olivier Goffart wrote:
>> >> > Opinions for or against?
>> >>
>> >> I think it's a good idea, just like we have QT_USE_QSTRINGBUILDER, we
>> >> could ha
On Tuesday 24 March 2015 19:40:52 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 March 2015 09:40:08 Olivier Goffart wrote:
> >> > Opinions for or against?
> >>
> >> I think it's a good idea, just like we have QT_USE_QSTRINGBUILDER, we
> >> could have QT_CHECK_ASSERT or something
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 March 2015 09:40:08 Olivier Goffart wrote:
>> > Opinions for or against?
>>
>> I think it's a good idea, just like we have QT_USE_QSTRINGBUILDER, we
>> could have QT_CHECK_ASSERT or something like that.
>
> Ok, I'll prepare a patch.
Did this happen?
Thank
On Tuesday 17 March 2015 09:40:08 Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > Opinions for or against?
>
> I think it's a good idea, just like we have QT_USE_QSTRINGBUILDER, we could
> have QT_CHECK_ASSERT or something like that.
Ok, I'll prepare a patch.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
So
On Monday 16 March 2015 14:54:53 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Monday 16 March 2015 21:05:41 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > Because we want to benefit from the new code and remove the unnecessary
> > > #ifndef and Q_UNUSED. If we don't change the current macro, then we
> > > de
On Monday 16 March 2015 21:05:41 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Because we want to benefit from the new code and remove the unnecessary
> > #ifndef and Q_UNUSED. If we don't change the current macro, then we
> > deprecate the old one and convert all the code to the new one
>
> Y
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Because we want to benefit from the new code and remove the unnecessary
> #ifndef and Q_UNUSED. If we don't change the current macro, then we
> deprecate the old one and convert all the code to the new one
You could deprecate the old behavior.
#ifdef QT_BUILDING_QT || QT
On Sunday 15 March 2015 19:28:22 André Pönitz wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:41:32PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > Which can still be done in one line. But we don't even need to do it.
> > > We
> > > can leave the old one as it, and use Q_ASSERT_UNUSED for the new asserts
> >
> > Befor
On 13 March 2015 at 20:41, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> Before we discuss the name, we have to discuss doing a 10k-line change to 1884
> files in Qt.
But why would such a change be necessary?
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo
___
Development mailing list
Development
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:41:32PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Which can still be done in one line. But we don't even need to do it. We
> > can leave the old one as it, and use Q_ASSERT_UNUSED for the new asserts
>
> Before we discuss the name, we have to discuss doing a 10k-line change to
On Friday 13 March 2015 18:02:51 Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Friday 13 March 2015 09:08:35 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > It's a minor SIC and I still call it justified. Anyone who was using
> > #ifndef was making assumptions about Q_ASSERT's internals and how it is
> > declared. We should all agree th
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 06:02:51PM +0100, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Friday 13 March 2015 09:08:35 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > It's a minor SIC and I still call it justified. Anyone who was using #ifndef
> > was making assumptions about Q_ASSERT's internals and how it is declared.
> > We should all
On Friday 13 March 2015 09:08:35 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> It's a minor SIC and I still call it justified. Anyone who was using #ifndef
> was making assumptions about Q_ASSERT's internals and how it is declared.
> We should all agree that making assumptions is a bad idea.
It was documented:
http:/
On Friday 13 March 2015 12:23:00 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Thiago Macieira wrote:
> >> What macro works for multiple versions of Qt?
> >> Why should everyone define such a macro themselves in their code? How
> >> about contributing it back to qglobal.h? What would it be called? And to
> >> bring this
Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> What macro works for multiple versions of Qt?
>> Why should everyone define such a macro themselves in their code? How
>> about contributing it back to qglobal.h? What would it be called? And to
>> bring this full circle, how about swapping the semantic of the old and
>>
On Thursday 12 March 2015 23:22:17 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > This was intentional and the minor SIC was expected. It only happens if
> > you're calling a static function that only exists for Q_ASSERT -- not many
> > people do that.
>
> Oops, nobody told Allen:
>
> https:/
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> This was intentional and the minor SIC was expected. It only happens if
> you're calling a static function that only exists for Q_ASSERT -- not many
> people do that.
Oops, nobody told Allen:
https://github.com/KDAB/GammaRay/commit/44ac33d970e
I think this affects far
On Thursday 05 March 2015 09:17:57 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> I'll add the note to the Q_ASSERT and will add the parentheses.
https://codereview.qt-project.org/107883
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
___
On Thursday 05 March 2015 13:59:01 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After commit ebef2ad1 (Make the empty Q_ASSERT still check its
> argument for validity, 2014-09-11), there are two source
> incompatibilities compared to Qt 5.4. I understand the message in the
> commit.
>
> The following code f
Hello,
After commit ebef2ad1 (Make the empty Q_ASSERT still check its
argument for validity, 2014-09-11), there are two source
incompatibilities compared to Qt 5.4. I understand the message in the
commit.
The following code fails to compile with -DQT_NO_DEBUG:
sic.cpp:10:14: error: use of undecl
20 matches
Mail list logo
