On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 09:03:05AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj�nnes wrote: > Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Does anybody (except Lars) find the following nice? > > Why do you want to find it nice?
Because sometimes I'd like to read code. And it certainly does not help much if I have to clean my display everytime I stumble across these #ifdefs. > It now compiles and work on sub-standard compilers. I can certainly > remove that again if that is what you want? No. I want the code in a usable form. If that means I can't use the newest version of some external lib in alpha stage, that's fate. Next try next year. Even if said lib is the hippest of modern C++. > | This looks completely unreadable to me. > > How nice of you to think so. I know that you have some kind of preprocessor build into your eyes that handles #ifdefs and creates some endomorphin if they encounter the sequence "boost::", but I would not mind if you kept in mind the existance of poorly equipped lesser beings... > | With "revert that patch" I did not mean "wrap it in #ifdef"... > > "My compiler is old as ages, and I want it to stay that way!" Unless there are viable alternatives, yes. Moreover, you decreed a feature freeze, basically stalling LyX development for three months or so. Ok, I can live with that. But then I do not expect _you_ to introduce controversial stuff like that. [Yes, I know, you send the patch to the list, and I could hve tested it myself] Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
