On 12/24/2016 05:18 PM, Alexander Antimonov wrote:
>> We should have a good expectation of improving life for our users ...
> Users are important, but with such move we could improve developers'
> life at least.
More to the point, code that is easier maintain benefits developers as
well as users.
> We should have a good expectation of improving life for our users ...
Users are important, but with such move we could improve developers'
life at least.
> - Introduce new bugs (because big rewrites always do)
Sure, but with C++ port we can also simplify code, and less code - less bugs.
Now
Is there a case for what users will get if we make these changes? We
should have a good expectation of improving life for our users or something
similarly worthy if we were to undertake the risk of such a project.
The following user effects come to mind, and they aren't overly positive:
-
Hi,
I could take part in porting Geeqie to C++1x if it is decided to do so.
I've been using different kinds of C++ (98/2003/201x) for more than 10
years. I believe the fundamental thing why C++ is better than C is C++
destructor and all the automatic actions that can be taken in it. It
is very
On 2016-12-24 15:00, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> In any case. If we agree about a specific style, it should be
> configured via vim modeline in all files. Currently we have the
> following:
>set shiftwidth=8 softtabstop=0 cindent cinoptions={1s:
> It is nothing more wrong than a mismatch of that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi Omari,
Am Fr den 23. Dez 2016 um 21:42 schrieb Omari Stephens:
> It is at least hypothetically possible to port Geeqie to C++11 / GtkMM.
>
> Ignoring the inevitable ridiculous mountain of work that it would take,
> does the end state seem like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi Omari,
Am Fr den 23. Dez 2016 um 19:09 schrieb Omari Stephens:
> In #2, I had created a one-liner to compute a line-length histogram our
> codebase. I've rerun it and included the results below as [1]. If also
> attached a list of
