On 25 April 2017 at 17:34, Lars Knoll <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 25 Apr 2017, at 15:51, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Em terça-feira, 25 de abril de 2017, às 07:59:03 -03, Marc Mutz escreveu: >>> What's holding us back? >> >> At this point, inertia. >> >> I've already lifted my objection in the grounds that no one in the Linux >> sphere cares about compatibility between libstdc++ and libc++ without a >> "rebuild the world" step. >> >> Using the standard library requires a QUIP with the allowed classes and the >> allowed uses of those classes, as I'm sure we'll find incomplete or non- >> standard implementations of them in the many platforms and compilers we need >> to support. > > We concluded that we don’t want to be responsible for the stdlib breaking > compatibility or compatibility between libstdc++ and libc++. So in that > respect, we should be able to more freely to use more of the standard > library, as long as the parts we’re using are supported on all our platforms. > > But I agree with Thiago, that we should have this written down in a QUIP, > ideally with a list of the classes we consider ok to use in our APIs.
Sounds like a good idea, because things like std::vector are becoming part of our API and ABI. :) https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/191873/ _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
