On 25 Sep 2000, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >>>>> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Anyone any ideas ? Or should I just #define __STRICT_ANSI__ (yuck)
>
> John> and looking further I have found the answer. LyX specifically
> John> removes this define (and in fact won't compile with it). I
> John> assume this won't change anytime soon, so I will just have to
> John> define it temporarily when I include the Qt header.
>
> I remember we decided to undefine __STRICT_ANSI__ because some code
> did not work (some C functions were not defined anymore). What kind of
> compile break do you get? We are trying to go towards ANSI
> conformance, after all...
>
> JMarc
>
JMarc, I will investigate exactly what breaks when __STRICT_ANSI__ is
defined later. I would like if possible to leave this defined so we don't
lie to header files ;)
thanks
john
p.s. I noticed you weren't certified on advogato yet ! Why haven't you put
yourself down as LyX developer ? Do you not use the account at all
