<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'><br><br><div><div id="SkyDrivePlaceholder"></div>> Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 01:14:52 +0200<br>> Subject: Re: C++11<br>> From: kretschmann@kde.org<br>> To: amarok-devel@kde.org<br>> <br>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Matěj Laitl <matej@laitl.cz> wrote:<br>> > On 8. 5. 2013 Patrick von Reth wrote:<br>> >> For the official builds we are still using gcc 4.4.7 and we probably won't<br>> >> switch to 4.8 before we switch to qt5. But for a amarok only build, I<br>> >> already did some testing and got a working build with gcc 4.8. For msvc, we<br>> >> are currently using msvc10, and won't switch to msvc12(which has c++11<br>> >> support) before we switch to qt5. Cheers<br>> ><br>> > So I think this is the answer: C++11 only as soon Windows guys will support<br>> > it.<br>> <br>> It's not really clear to me what Patrick meant to say. Is our build<br>> the "official" one? If not, how is this official build relevant to us?</div><div>With the official builds I meant the one we are releasing as KDE Windows.</div><div>But for the amarok installer I could use a different compiler.</div><div>Also the need of c++ x11 could motivate us to move to the new compiler a bit earlier.</div><div>And as it would only be amarok for the beginning that would require c++11 there would be no harm done to the guis providing Kontact, Calligra etc.</div><div><br></div><div><br>> <br>> My initial interpretation was: "Amarok is built with GCC, and I've<br>> already tested it with GCC 4.8. It worked, so we can probably use<br>> C++11."<br>> <br>> > Another (and IMO important) benefit of C++11 is make-coding-fun one. Trying new<br>> > things is fun and C++11 is sexy, perhaps Markey would enjoy coding on Amarok<br>> > much more if he could use C++11.<br>> <br>> That's a good point. Also, gaining practical experience is useful in<br>> other places.<br>> <br>> >> With some Lambda usage, it becomes a good deal more readable and<br>> >> pleasant to work with, and less error prone. This is how it could look<br>> >> instead:<br>> >><br>> >> From 7cca04eb25169e5befb3e5d6a1290795c3e651b8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001<br>> >> From: Mark Kretschmann <kretschmann@kde.org><br>> >> Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 19:08:24 +0200<br>> >> Subject: [PATCH] Replace redundant code with one Lambda function.<br>> ><br>> > This change doesn't really need a lambda support at all, just deduplicate the<br>> > code into a helper function, it is only slightly less elegant. Please do it.<br>> <br>> Sure you could use a plain helper function here. But I find that in<br>> such cases, where a helper is only called from one function, it makes<br>> the code even less readable. The beauty of the lambda is that it can<br>> remove redundancy, while at the same time keeping relevant code<br>> together.<br>> <br>> --<br>> Mark Kretschmann<br>> Amarok Developer<br>> Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe<br>> http://amarok.kde.org - http://fsfe.org<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Amarok-devel mailing list<br>> Amarok-devel@kde.org<br>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel<br></div> </div></body>
</html>