I've been thinking about this and reading the various comments. On the
whole I'm not convinced that any change would actually be worthwhile at
the moment. There would be a very good case for using some of these
features if the code were being written from scratch but it's far from
clear that
On 19/05/2019 18:43, Makarius wrote:
On 19/05/2019 17:46, Matthew Fernandez wrote:
If I understand the version numbering correctly, those MinGW versions are
derived from GCC 4.9.3 which supports C++11.
Such claims of supporting certain standards are rarely accurate. It
usually takes years
On 19/05/2019 19:48, Matthew Fernandez wrote:
>
> Agreed, but you can get a pretty accurate record from
> https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/projects/cxx-status.html#cxx11 which
> shows everything relevant was completed before 4.9. In practice, I have
> not experienced anything that makes me doubt
On 19/05/2019 17:46, Matthew Fernandez wrote:
>
> If I understand the version numbering correctly, those MinGW versions are
> derived from GCC 4.9.3 which supports C++11.
Such claims of supporting certain standards are rarely accurate. It
usually takes years to make things really work. See also
> On May 19, 2019, at 04:51, Makarius wrote:
>
> On 19/05/2019 05:57, Matthew Fernandez wrote:
>>
>> Some time ago I proposed PolyML switch to building with the C++11 standard
>> [0]. The main blocking issue that surfaced was Isabelle supporting Ubuntu
>> 12.04 which ships without a
On 19/05/2019 05:57, Matthew Fernandez wrote:
>
> Some time ago I proposed PolyML switch to building with the C++11 standard
> [0]. The main blocking issue that surfaced was Isabelle supporting Ubuntu
> 12.04 which ships without a C++11-enlightened compiler. In January 2019,
> Makarius bumped
Hello PolyMLers,
Some time ago I proposed PolyML switch to building with the C++11 standard [0].
The main blocking issue that surfaced was Isabelle supporting Ubuntu 12.04
which ships without a C++11-enlightened compiler. In January 2019, Makarius
bumped the supported Linux release to Ubuntu
