Am 23.10.2015 um 20:55 schrieb Guillaume Munch <g...@lyx.org>: > Le 23/10/2015 17:55, Peter Kümmel a écrit : >> I wonder to still see auto_ptr: >> >> https://travis-ci.org/syntheticpp/lyx >> >> Which old compiler you wanna support? >> >> Peter >> > > > Dear Peter, > > > See <http://mid.gmane.org/326d2a33-d65f-488d-9bc3-5331535a4...@lyx.org> > and subsequent messages. The only concrete example was Jean-Marc's OSX > 10.7 computer, although in this case there is a straightfoward fix > according to Google.
Note, I've to pass --disable-cxx11 to configure to build LyX on my system. LyX 2.1.x an Mac is available for systems back to OS 10.6 for LyX 2.2.0 there isn't any statement for which systems it should be available. Stephan > Another argument in favour of keeping C++98 seemed to be that > backporting from C++11 to C++98 is supposed to be effortless (which > makes me wonder why C++11 was at all invented). However the discussion > about allowing Unicode string literals clearly showed the contrary: > <http://mid.gmane.org/mv8skg$jb7$1...@ger.gmane.org>. > > The overall discussion about C++11 was rather unconvincing, and as a > consequence I have already decided to use C++11 features without > restraint starting from 2.3, and not to make a single non-trivial effort > at possible backports into 2.2 of any of my patches. One cannot claim > one day that LyX is short in developer time, and another day that > increasing backporting efforts is without consequences. This makes me > hope that this 2.2 version will be short-lived (however impatient I am > to see it out). > > > > Guillaume > >
