[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-panel-devel
Subject:    Re: [plasma-framework] /: Revert "Enabling C++11 flags for clang and gcc"
From:       Kevin Ottens <ervin () kde ! org>
Date:       2013-06-30 20:37:42
Message-ID: 1567353.jyIanWvXHC () wintermute
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


Hello,

On Saturday 29 June 2013 18:51:38 Ivan Čukić wrote:
> > > I don't agree that these /additional/ features are about the api.
> > > <algorithm> is an (IMO) immensely useful, especially with lambdas and
> > > std::bind for actual non exposed parts.
> > 
> > Well, yes that's all useful. That's the type of things I'd like to use
> > everywhere too. I badly worded that above though. What I meant is that for
> > the internals of a library you can spare their use in most cases (just to
> 
> Ok, that is fine then.
> 
> > avoid blowing the complexity of your lib internals), still you probably
> > want to provide extra API for C++11 users (and then limit your use there,
> > also important from a BC standpoint). Now of course that's the library
> 
> +1 ABI should be the same in both versions (unlike gcc's std::list iirc)

Just wondering, was this email as "OK, I see where you come from", or was it a 
"OK, let's deal with the C++11 dependency in plasma-framework the same way 
than the rest of KDE Frameworks as lamely described"?

Matters to me because that means either we're on the same page now and I 
encode my previous email at the right place on the wiki (it's evidently 
lacking at that point), or I need to actively seek with you a compromise 
around plasma-framework.

Cheers.
-- 
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net

KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
Plasma-devel mailing list
Plasma-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]