On 14 March 2017 at 17:54, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> wrote: >> I understand that there are limitations (to put it mildly) regarding the use >> of API from the C++ standard library in Qt API itself due to the inability >> to extend our binary compatibility promise. I'm curious though whether >> std::function falls under the same umbrella? > > It does. libstdc++ has shown they have no qualms about breaking binary > compatibility in downstream libraries, as they've done it twice in the past > three releases (the most notable case was std::string).
Ahem, it's not like there weren't qualms about it, but doing it for std::string and std::list was eventually necessary. The libstdc++ developers (including myself) spend fair amounts of time and energy trying to avoid abi breakage, including abi breakage in downstream libraries. > What we have to ask ourselves is whether we want to say that is not our > problem. For example, the std::string breakage caused any application or > library that used it in its API to need to be recompiled. Besides Qt, there > aren't many libraries that avoid it. So if the underlying C++ Standard Library > breaks ABI, should we try to work around it? Or should we punt the problem to > the user? I don't know. What do our users want? How big a problem would it be for them? _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
