Re: Using C++0x auto
On Thursday, 18 July 2013 10:32:35 UTC+1, Mike Hommey wrote: On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 05:09:22PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 04:17:50PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 01:15:31PM -0700, Kyle Huey wrote: We've dropped support for versions of MSVC prior to 2010, and we're requiring at least GCC 4.4. According to [0] that means we should be able to use *auto*. Anybody know any reasons why we can't start using it? Filed bug 894242. (double 42!) This almost stuck, but B2G desktop builds are, guess what, using gcc 4.4, and a bug was already on file to upgrade that (bug 770625). Hopefully this will go forward now that there are patches. And it's now done. Thanks to Ted Mielczarek and Ben Hearsum for the quick reviews, and Aki Sasaki for the buildbot reconfig. Now we can start discussing what specific features we want to start using. Bug 895322 has already been filed to use static_assert instead of MOZ_STATIC_ASSERT. A good resource is http://wiki.apache.org/stdcxx/C++0xCompilerSupport Our base versions are 4.4 for gcc, and 10.0 for MSVC. I'm not sure what our lowest supported version of clang is. From that table, using the gcc and msvc versions, that gives: gcc msvcclang auto4.4 10.0* Yes decltype4.3@10.0@ 2.9 extern template 3.3 6.0Yes new fn syntax 4.4 10.02.9 right angle brackets4.3 8.0Yes r-value references 4.3@10.0! Yes static_assert 4.3 10.02.9 built-in type traits4.3 8.03.0 * v0.9 @ v1.0 ! v2.0 Which means a minimum clang version of 2.9 without built-in type traits, or 3.0 with. - Reece ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: We should drop MathML
On Monday, 6 May 2013 14:12:48 UTC+1, Trevor Saunders wrote: On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 08:24:07AM -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote: I am still waiting for the rebuttal of my arguments, in the original email in this thread, about how TeX is strictly better than MathML for the particular task of representing equations. How easy is it to build an accessibility application on top of TeX, or even a restricted subset of it? Note that these exist for MathML, but not so much for TeX. I actually think it would be easier to map tx math into the accessibility APIs we support than mathml. There are several problems/issues here: # Context How do you differentiate/identify math powers (e.g. a^2), footnotes (e.g. some text^1) and code (int c = a^b;)? With MathML markup, you have clearly identified what the content of the document/sub-tree is. # Parsing With a TeX-like format, a speech synthesiser/screen reader/web browser would need to write a parser for that format. With MathML, the parsing is already handled by the SGML/XML/HTML5 parser so the application can process it via DOM/SAX/a reader API. currently we don't expose mathml at all other than as a an object that we say is an equation, and its not really clear how to fix that with mathml. This is enough information for the screen reader/speech synthesiser to know that it has MathML content, and thus walk the MathML DOM to read the math out loud. It should also be enough to query associated CSS styles to handle any Aural CSS or CSS Speech styles associated with the MathML. Another important consideration is existing web content. If you are going to start rendering text that has e.g. a^2 as math, then all documents that use that, e.g. pYou can use a^b in TeX to denote 'a raised to the bsupth/sup power'./p - Reece ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
