On Wed, 2015-07-01 at 19:44 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > On Wed, 2015-07-01 at 09:18 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 17:30 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > > > > But can we synchronize an ABI break in gtkmm and friends with the > > > ABI > > > > break that distros introduce when they change the default value of > > > > _GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11 from 0 to 1? That ABI break will probably occur > > > at > > > > different times in different distros, perhaps with different > > > versions > > > > of gtk+/gtkmm. > > > > > > It looks like it's going to happen at almost the same time for almost > > > all distros. So it looks like now is the time. > > > > Overall, I think now is the time to break ABI. We won't have another > > chance until GTK+ 4, which might never happen. I think we should combine > > this with using and requiring C++11, to get that out of the way too. I > > suspect that using C++11 would cause ABI breaks too, but plenty of > > better-informed people doubt that, so I'm just being pessimistic. > > > > Does anyone object to the ABI break? > > Then again, if Ubuntu breaks ABI now (or if they do parallel installs), > but doesn't use gtkmm 3.18 until the next Ubuntu version, the second ABI > break will be our fault.
Does anyone object to us requiring C++11 as long as we don't break ABI? There's a reasonable chance that this won't break ABI. This might not be of much benefit to application coders, but it can make our own *mm library code slightly nicer to work with. -- Murray Cumming [email protected] www.murrayc.com _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
