On 10/31/11 2:25 PM, "ext Giovanni Bajo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Il giorno 31/ott/2011, alle ore 13:17, <[email protected]> ><[email protected]> ha scritto: > >> On 10/31/11 10:53 AM, "ext Thiago Macieira" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Monday, 31 de October de 2011 10:44:16 Giovanni Bajo wrote: >>>> What is the policy on adding new dependencies to the Qt project? >>> >>> I'd guess that the maintainer for that module approves. For qtbase.git, >>> that's >>> Lars. >>> >>> Importing third-party source code requires approval under the CLA too. >>> >>>> To me, it seems a bad idea to add a dependency on any library unless >>>> there >>>> is a specific use case were it is really necessary. So adding Boost >>>>just >>>> because it's "cool" (for some definition is cool) doesn't look like a >>>> deal. >>>> It doesn't help that I specifically dislike Boost, but that's not the >>>> subject of this comment. >>> >>> Agreed. But I know João wouldn't do that: his complaint was that we >>> reinvent >>> the wheel just so we don't add the dependency. So I agree with him that >>> if >>> there is an implemented solution with no ill side effects, there's no >>> reason >>> not to use it. >> >> Compile/build time complexity is one reason to be careful. The other one >> is the size of the full stack. We have to be careful and do decent >> judgement calls here whether the benefits are worth the additional >> dependency. > >Agreed. > >> Supporting some C++11 features on old compilers is e.g. a case where I >> wonder whether adding a dependency for everybody is worth it. Most >> compilers (we care about) already support a decent subset of C++11, if >>you >> need other compilers simply don't use the feature. > > >I'm not sure who is the "you" in the above sentence. A maintainer? Or a >patch submitter? The Qt users in that case. For Qt itself I don't believe we can currently introduce a hard dependency onto C++11 features as that would exclude a large range of users that still need to work with older compilers. > >The choice of the (subset of the) language is a different beast from >adopting new libraries. I believe that choices like "C++11 allowed in >source code" or "Feature X,Y,Z of C++11 allowed in source code" should be >taken by maintainers/Lars, at least for the essentials modules, and >published in the wiki. I can't see how else things should be done -- it's >a guidance for any random contributor on the way code must be written, >and it saves everybody from wasting time using a language feature that is >not allowed because of constraints that might not be apparent. Code written for Qt must (for the moment) still compile on C++98 compliant compilers. But we can use C++11 to optimize things when available. Cheers, Lars _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
