> Lars> So you want us to use gcc 2.7.x still? Don't take advantage of
> Lars> the C++ standard library, templates and such?
Lars:
That are two different questions.
Of course I want LyX to use the STL, from a coding point of view,
from a maintenance point of view and because I like it personally.
We do not do anything fancy with templates that surpasses the requirements
the STL has. So "being able to compile code using the STL" seems to be a
sensible requirement for compilers in order to support them.
Before you throw purists' arguments: There is currently no such thing as
a standard conforming compiler. Not a single one. So all compilers are
bad. Since we do not want do to the translation .C -> .o with paper and
pencil we need to draw a line *somewhere*. You draw a very tight line
around your current system configuration and I am saying that this area
is to small for a widespread acceptance of LyX.
Now, if LyX was a hobbists' project, I would not mind. But it is not.
> Let's say keeping 2.8.x for some time would be nice.
If 2.8.x compiles STL, that's a very good compromise. I went the route
2.7 -> egcs -> 2.95, so I can't say for sure whether 2.8 suffices.
A compiler's support for namespace should have no influence on whether
It compiles LyX or not. We do not _need_ namespaces. Maybe it would be
nice to have them in the future so we should be prepared for that time,
but it's no requirement right now.
Especially if it makes LyX less attractive.
Andre'
PS:
> Lars> RFCs can also be wrong.
Please try to explain to a mathematician (i.e. me in this case)
how a _definition_ can be wrong. Granted, it might be useless,
it might be awkward, but it can't be wrong. It's a definition.
The problem is not purely academic. I think I explained the situation
already. Nevertheless: "My" mailserver rejects Mail with invalid headers.
I do not have admistrative rights there, moreover it's some kind of
gentlemen agreement situation that I am allowed to use it at all.
I have several reasons not to use any other server.
So this is a strong incentive not to cause any kind of trouble there,
moreover I even agree with this policy.
Usually I am not especially interested in reading emails from people
who stomp on good manners, but this case is somewhat special, since I
respect the worker for the work's sake.
And it is indeed strange: On the one side you despise compilers for not
following the rules, on the other you are actively breaking rules.
Does not make much sense to me.
PPS: It is Friday for several hundred millions of people...
--
It'll take a long time to eat 63.000 peanuts.
André Pönitz ......................... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
