On 25/02/16 18:02, "Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira" <development-bounces+lars.knoll=theqtcompany....@qt-project.org on behalf of thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote:
>On quinta-feira, 25 de fevereiro de 2016 17:33:52 PST Cristian Adam wrote: >> This might be a burden for some of the Qt developers (Windows ones). >> >> But all the Qt users get a modern / flexible moc, see this thread: >> https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/470ama/qt_moc_myths_debunked/d09c90e > >I don't think we need a more flexible moc. What do we want to do that we can't >do with the current one? > >Don't say "template QObjects". That has other reasons for being a bad idea, >currently. > >Is it Olivier's maintenance burden? I think we will need a moc that understands and correctly interprets all of C++11/14/17's language constructs in the longer term. We will in any case need clang in quite some places in Qt, like qdoc, the code model in Qt Creator, and maybe other places. Yes, having that dependency is a burden on building Qt, but it's one we need. Cheers, Lars _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
