Am Samstag, 9. Januar 2016 um 14:27:46, schrieb Stephan Witt <st.w...@gmx.net> > Am 08.01.2016 um 10:26 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <lasgout...@lyx.org>: > > > > Le 08/01/2016 10:08, Stephan Witt a écrit : > >> Am 08.01.2016 um 09:28 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <lasgout...@lyx.org>: > >>> Yes, unless somone has a different brilliant idea. > >> > >> Am I right that it makes explicit what is otherwise implicit? So it is > >> safe to commit? > > > > Yes, I think so. The question is only maintainability. Guillaume complained > > that the is fragile because new code can forget to add this explicit lyx::. > > Scott, > > I’d like to commit the patch (attached again). Is this ok?
It applies cleanly, compiles on linux. First tests are OK.
> Stephan
Kornel
> >
> >>> The problem is that libc++ provides std::next even when not in C++11 mode.
> >>
> >> Is the implementation of std::next compatible to the e.g.
> >> ParagraphList::iterator or not?
> >
> > It should. The problem is only that we provide boost::next when not in
> > C++11 mode, but clang already provides the real std::next.
> >
> > The proper fix would be to check at configure time whether std::next exists
> > and react on that. But it is extra work :)
> >
> >>> This problem will go away in 2.3.
> >>
> >> How? With your fix? Does it fix wrong LyX code or is it some work around?
> >
> > Because support for c++98 will go away, together with many of our lyx::
> > wrappers.
> >
> > Georg, do you have a thought on that?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
