Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Georg Baum a écrit : >> Jean-Marcs concern is still valid: If the include is not needed, remove >> it. Simply replacing it by something else that is not needed either does >> not make sense. And if the include is needed leave it like it is. The >> c-prefixed variants are not available everywhere. > > You guys thinks that LyX is still portable to some old Unix, I think you > should prove your affirmation.
No. You want to remove stuff, so you have to prove that it will not break anything. > I would say that LyX is not portable to a > platform that don't support advanced C++. That is true, but keep in mind that not every platform uses gcc, IIRC the sun compiler was pretty early in C++ adoption, and there are several others. And even if old systems are ruled out: *BSD is sometimes quite different from linux or windows. > I would go as far as to say > that LyX portability is set by the portability of gcc >= 3.3 and boost. The minimum gcc version is 3.1 (at least it was like that two months ago, I have that compiler at home and can check that), and boost supports an astonishing large number of old compilers including VC++ 6 and gcc 2.95. >> I don't agree. It may look strange, but as others pointed out limits.h is >> actually more portable than climits. > > No it's not because it's contents depends on the platform. There is some > boost library that gives you the same information AFAIK, don't remember > the name. That's what I call _portable_. maybe limits.h is a bad example, since the C++ header limits can be used in many cases. Take for example stdlib.h vs. cstdlib. Don't tell me that it's contents is platform specific too, I know that, but there is a reasonable subset that is available on all platforms. Georg
