Kristoffer, Since your patch only removes the throw specifiers I went ahead and committed it. Thank you for your contribution to KiCad.
Cheers, Wayne On 6/12/2017 1:29 PM, Kristoffer Ödmark wrote: > Thank you wayne! > > If you ever change your mind about the fix-as-find, i actually went > ahead and cleaned up my previous patch. I noticed that I had actually > "fixed" space line-endings in all of them, therefore resulting in the > humongous patch previously. > > This patch is a lot less intrusive. > > - Kristoffer > > On 2017-06-12 18:24, Wayne Stambaugh wrote: >> Kristoffer, >> >> I committed your path. Thank you for your contribution to KiCad. >> >> To answer your question about C++11. Yes, the goal is to make the KiCad >> source C++11 compliant. I've been taking a fix it as I find it (when I >> actually remember) approach rather than try to make it compliant in one >> shot. This is primarily to prevent large disruptions in the stability >> of the development branch although getting rid of the exception throw >> specifiers is low risk. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Wayne >> >> On 6/9/2017 4:41 AM, Kristoffer Ödmark wrote: >>> This is a patch that has a minimum amount of fixes at least. >>> >>> But honestly, I can take the time to fix up my previous patch a bit, and >>> get rid of all of the exception specifiers, there are waaay to many >>> warnings now and it is hard to look at the output due to that. >>> >>> - Kristoffer >>> >>> On 2017-06-09 02:18, Chris Pavlina wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 02:03:29AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On 08.06.2017 23:56, Kristoffer Ödmark wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I attached a patch where i removed all of them just to show how >>>>>> many of >>>>>> them there are, also suggest that we remove that from the coding >>>>>> policy >>>>>> ( patch 2 ). >>>>> >>>>> Would it make sense to use "noexcept" still? >>>> >>>> "noexcept" was *added* in C++11 so it's obviously allowed in C++11. >>>> >>>> Decent explanation about this here: >>>> http://blog.quasardb.net/when-noexcept-2/ >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Are there any considerations regarding becoming c++11 compatible? >>>>> >>>>> We already use C++11, e.g. for range-based for and std::shared_ptr. >>>>> >>>>> Simon >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >>>> Post to : [email protected] >>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >>>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >>> Post to : [email protected] >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >> Post to : [email protected] >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
