From kdevelop-devel  Mon Apr 24 16:34:59 2006
From: Kuba Ober <kuba () mareimbrium ! org>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:34:59 +0000
To: kdevelop-devel
Subject: Re: Google Summer of Code 2006 Project proposals
Message-Id: <200604241234.59193.kuba () mareimbrium ! org>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kdevelop-devel&m=114589669214746

On Monday 24 April 2006 05:58, Roberto Raggi wrote:
> Hi Hamish!
>
> On Wednesday 19 April 2006 10:55, Hamish Rodda wrote:
> > The approach being taken by active developers is our internal parser, and
> > we are confident that with time it will get up to scratch.  Currently I'm
> > refactoring it from stdlib to qt, to make it more accessibile to myself
> > and other developers for hacking.
>
> wow Hamish! rpp2 is just great :-) please Hamish rename it in rpp (or
> preprocessor?) and remove the old rpp code. We don't need crap-stl code now
> that we have *cute* Qt code ;-)

I don't think that porting from C++ containers to Qt containers is anything 
but a waste of time. C++ coders are supposed to know standard, now decade+ 
old library that comes with C++. How porting it to a less-standard, 
toolkit-specifit containers will make it more accessible is beyond me. Anyone 
who codes in Qt is supposed to know C++, right?

I don't think that there's anything lacking in the C++ library documentation 
nor implementation departments, so please tell me how moving from a container 
library that's part of the language standard, and is built upon in numerous 
boost extensions, to a container library that comes with Qt is good?

I'm amazed by the condensed "crap-stl" argument -- or rather, the lack of 
it . . .

Cheers, Kuba

_______________________________________________
KDevelop-devel mailing list
KDevelop-devel@barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de
http://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinfo/kdevelop-devel