Am 23.10.2015 um 21:27 schrieb Stephan Witt:
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.
Note, I've to pass --disable-cxx11 to configure to build LyX on
my system. LyX 2.1.x an Mac is available for systems back to OS 10.6
for LyX 2.2.0 there isn't any statement for which systems it should
be available.
Stephan
The compiler version depends on the developer system/Xcode
version not the Mac OS target version.
Overall "Mac users" are used to see new features not
supported on older systems. So I see no problem to have 2.2
running on more recent OS version.
Peter
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
