On 14 Feb 2001, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Lars> There is only one reason why we have not ditched it already: too
> Lars> few c++ libraries have a really good std::string and ours is
> Lars> actually better.
>
> Indeed. And th
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> There is only one reason why we have not ditched it already: too
Lars> few c++ libraries have a really good std::string and ours is
Lars> actually better.
Indeed. And that's quite a good reason.
JMarc
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| Lars> lyxstring is dead, it just has not quite realised yet.
|
| Why?
it is not standard conformant.
one piece of code that we should not have to maintain
we should use std::s
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> lyxstring is dead, it just has not quite realised yet.
Why?
JMarc
Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 13 Feb 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > But we really don't want to support STLport with our lyxstring we want
| > to use theirs...
|
| Maybe you do but I for one like my binaries small. A factor of 10
| increase in binary size unstripped or 5 s
On 14-Feb-2001 Allan Rae wrote:
>
> Maybe you do but I for one like my binaries small. A factor of 10
> increase in binary size unstripped or 5 stripped (as I've explained the
> last three times we've had this arguement about stl_string_fwd.h) is not
> something I want to put up with and I doub
On 13 Feb 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> But we really don't want to support STLport with our lyxstring we want
> to use theirs...
Maybe you do but I for one like my binaries small. A factor of 10
increase in binary size unstripped or 5 stripped (as I've explained the
last three times we've
On 13 Feb 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Lior Silberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
> |=20
> | > On 12 Feb 2001, Lars Gullik Bj=F8nnes wrote:
> | >=20
> | > > John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | > [...]
> | > > | 3) stl_string_fwd.h is old
Lior Silberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
|
| > On 12 Feb 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| >
| > > John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > [...]
| > > | 3) stl_string_fwd.h is old and can be deleted ?
| > >
| > > IMHO yes. The use of this non-stand
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> > John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
> > | 3) stl_string_fwd.h is old and can be deleted ?
> >
> > IMHO yes. The use of this non-standard header is a trick to reduce
> > compile times.
>
> This
On 12 Feb 2001, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> | 3) stl_string_fwd.h is old and can be deleted ?
>
> IMHO yes. The use of this non-standard header is a trick to reduce
> compile times.
This is used to allow use with STLport and SGI's STL. Without it
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| is {nt,vms}_defines.h really needed ? Or how about a sysdeps directory
| containing :
|
| nt_defines.h
| os2_defines.h
| os2_errortable.h
| vms_defines.h< -- surely not used ???
| broken_headers.h
|
| or perhaps just in support/ ?
|
| Can someon
is {nt,vms}_defines.h really needed ? Or how about a sysdeps directory
containing :
nt_defines.h
os2_defines.h
os2_errortable.h
vms_defines.h< -- surely not used ???
broken_headers.h
or perhaps just in support/ ?
Can someone explain the string header schemes ?
Currently we have the fol
13 matches
Mail list logo
