Le 23/10/2015 20:22, Guillaume Munch a écrit :
Le 23/10/2015 20:16, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit :
Op 23-10-2015 om 20:55 schreef Guillaume Munch:
Le 23/10/2015 17:55, Peter Kümmel a écrit :
I wonder to still see auto_ptr:
https://travis-ci.org/syntheticpp/lyx
Which old compiler you wanna support?
Peter
Dear Peter,
See <http://mid.gmane.org/326d2a33-d65f-488d-9bc3-5331535a4...@lyx.org>
and subsequent messages. The only concrete example was Jean-Marc's OSX
10.7 computer, although in this case there is a straightfoward fix
according to Google.
Another argument in favour of keeping C++98 seemed to be that
backporting from C++11 to C++98 is supposed to be effortless (which
makes me wonder why C++11 was at all invented). However the discussion
about allowing Unicode string literals clearly showed the contrary:
<http://mid.gmane.org/mv8skg$jb7$1...@ger.gmane.org>.
The overall discussion about C++11 was rather unconvincing, and as a
consequence I have already decided to use C++11 features without
restraint starting from 2.3, and not to make a single non-trivial effort
at possible backports into 2.2 of any of my patches. One cannot claim
one day that LyX is short in developer time, and another day that
increasing backporting efforts is without consequences. This makes me
hope that this 2.2 version will be short-lived (however impatient I am
to see it out).
Guillaume
Well, I probably can wake you from your dreams of C++11 quickly when I
try compiling your C++11 features with MSVC2010...
Vincent
I think that your message was meant as an answer Peter's question
explaining that for some reason you need the support of MSVC2010.
(To clarify: I don't doubt it. I know nothing about the situation there.)
