I try to build GUB on an opensuse Tumbleweed system as this seems to be
necessary to further investigate the missing-fonts-in-pdfs-if-built-with-gub
bug.
'make bootstrap' fails early because make 3.81 is broken at least for systems
that use glibc 2.27. This problem can be fixed with the attach
Knut Petersen writes:
> I try to build GUB on an opensuse Tumbleweed system as this seems to
> be necessary to further investigate the
> missing-fonts-in-pdfs-if-built-with-gub bug.
Thanks for delving into this.
> 'make bootstrap' fails early because make 3.81 is broken at least for
> systems t
Am 05.07.2018 um 20:02 schrieb David Kastrup:
What C++ standard should we be able to ask for? I think that at the
current point of time, C++11 should be reasonably fine for the asking.
GUB uses gcc 4.9.4, so C++11 is fully implemented. Some features of C++14 are
not implemented in that old ve
On 2018/07/05 21:32:25, Dan Eble wrote:
On 2018/07/05 12:20:27, dak wrote:
> I'd like to see some rationale for the amount of
semi-general-purpose tooling
to
> get there, and more current or future uses of it may go a long way
towards
that.
The rationale is that std::optional is fit for th
On 2018/07/06 09:12:32, dak wrote:
On 2018/07/05 21:32:25, Dan Eble wrote:
> On 2018/07/05 12:20:27, dak wrote:
> The rationale is that std::optional is fit for this situation and if
LilyPond
> were built with C++17 I would simply have used it.
Any C++17 lookalike package is _not_ "simply us
> On 6 Jul 2018, at 11:12, d...@gnu.org wrote:
>
> On 2018/07/05 21:32:25, Dan Eble wrote:
>
>> The rationale is that std::optional is fit for this situation and if
> LilyPond
>> were built with C++17 I would simply have used it.
>
> Any C++17 lookalike package is _not_ "simply using it" but a
On Jul 6, 2018, at 18:02, Hans Åberg wrote:
One can do it the other way around, too:
#if __cplusplus < 201703L
namespace std {
using optional = Optional;
}
#endif
Ugh. That’s too pragmatic [even] for me.
I specifically avoided naming my class "optional" to avoid confusion
with the standard ty
> On 7 Jul 2018, at 00:13, nine.fierce.ball...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Jul 6, 2018, at 18:02, Hans Åberg wrote:
> One can do it the other way around, too:
> #if __cplusplus < 201703L
> namespace std {
> using optional = Optional;
> }
> #endif
>
> Ugh. That’s too pragmatic [even] for me.
That
On 2018/07/06 22:19:29, haberg-1_telia.com wrote:
The technique is useful for transforming code, though.
Into what? :)
https://codereview.appspot.com/359770043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/li
