On 4 Apr 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Asger wrote:
> | Read the latest issue of C++ Users Journal for another take on the
> | conformance argument.
>
> Is it the conformance test by Herb Sutter you are refering to?
Yes, it's the extensive conformance test of basically all existing
C++ compilers, and C++ standard libraries.
> | Abandoning lyxstring would be a huge regression at this point in time.
>
> And who said we should do that?
You did:
http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg21282.html
Juergen wrote "[lyxstring] is a good and necessary hack, isn't it ;)"
and you replied: "but not for long... imo we should never choose lyxstring
over a conforming std::string. lyxstring has certainly served its purpose,
but its time is running out."
And this is the statement that I think is wrong. I'm sorry for not being
more precise the first time.
Greets,
Asger
