On Thursday 14 September 2006 12:55, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> On Thursday 14 September 2006 09:49, Marc Mutz wrote:
> > > But anyway, building time is unimportant.
> >
> > Last sentence seconded.
>
> Don't you smell irony when half of the people who seconded the change
> overlap with the group of people that whine about "kdelibs development is
> so hard because it takes so long to compile" ?
>
> > > As a comparison (note that I run this in valgrind to
> > > slow it down,
>
> using valgrind to skew your benchmark? ROTFLMAO. Sorry. That was really
> funny.
>
> > > So much for fast Qt Containers...
>
> There is btw a bug in your benchmark script (see patch).
>
> > I guess we can arrange for you to sign an NDA with some of our clients to
> > be able to see the code that can be produced when there are no personal
> > quests against using anything with "standard" and "C++" in the same
> > sentence, however understandable these are for historical reasons.
>
> Oh, I'm fine with the STL. I'm just not fine for using it without knowing
> the drawbacks, and one of your NDA clients probably don't get shit we get
> when we use 200kb more memory.
>
> > If that's not possible, boost.org as well as opensource.adobe.com
> > contains material that can be called both "real-world" and "using STL
> > properly".
>
> No thanks. I (have to) maintain several boost-dependent packages and I know
> why it stinks.

Ok, so we'll go with QT_NO_STL as default and who wants to can use 
remove_definitions(-DQT_NO_STL) to have it removed for his subproject.

Objections ?

Alex
-- 
Work: alexander.neundorf AT jenoptik.com - http://www.jenoptik-los.de
Home: neundorf AT kde.org                - http://www.kde.org
      alex AT neundorf.net               - http://www.neundorf.net