C++11

[Patrick von Reth]

> Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 01:14:52 +0200
> Subject: Re: C++11
> From: kretschmann at kde.org
> To: amarok-devel at kde.org
> 
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Matěj Laitl <matej at laitl.cz> wrote:
> > On 8. 5. 2013 Patrick von Reth wrote:
> >> For the official builds we are still using gcc 4.4.7 and we probably won't
> >> switch to 4.8 before we switch to qt5. But for a amarok only build, I
> >> already did some testing and got a working build with gcc 4.8. For msvc, we
> >> are currently using msvc10, and won't switch to msvc12(which has c++11
> >> support) before we switch to qt5. Cheers
> >
> > So I think this is the answer: C++11 only as soon Windows guys will support
> > it.
> 
> It's not really clear to me what Patrick meant to say. Is our build
> the "official" one? If not, how is this official build relevant to us?With the official builds I meant the one we are releasing as KDE Windows.But for the amarok installer I could use a different compiler.Also the need of c++ x11 could motivate us to move to the new compiler a bit earlier.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.

> 
> My initial interpretation was: "Amarok is built with GCC, and I've
> already tested it with GCC 4.8. It worked, so we can probably use
> C++11."
> 
> > Another (and IMO important) benefit of C++11 is make-coding-fun one. Trying new
> > things is fun and C++11 is sexy, perhaps Markey would enjoy coding on Amarok
> > much more if he could use C++11.
> 
> That's a good point. Also, gaining practical experience is useful in
> other places.
> 
> >> With some Lambda usage, it becomes a good deal more readable and
> >> pleasant to work with, and less error prone. This is how it could look
> >> instead:
> >>
> >> From 7cca04eb25169e5befb3e5d6a1290795c3e651b8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >> From: Mark Kretschmann <kretschmann at kde.org>
> >> Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 19:08:24 +0200
> >> Subject: [PATCH] Replace redundant code with one Lambda function.
> >
> > This change doesn't really need a lambda support at all, just deduplicate the
> > code into a helper function, it is only slightly less elegant. Please do it.
> 
> Sure you could use a plain helper function here. But I find that in
> such cases, where a helper is only called from one function, it makes
> the code even less readable. The beauty of the lambda is that it can
> remove redundancy, while at the same time keeping relevant code
> together.
> 
> --
> Mark Kretschmann
> Amarok Developer
> Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
> http://amarok.kde.org - http://fsfe.org
> _______________________________________________
> Amarok-devel mailing list
> Amarok-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/amarok-devel/attachments/20130510/356654e7/attachment-0001.html>