openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter kovacs <>
Subject Re: Weak reference helper implementations
Date Tue, 15 Aug 2017 06:52:50 GMT
Good points!

But we need to address the dependency aging anyways. 
Because modern system having difficulties with our code.

We must develop a plan how we modernise the code.

How about support by version:
With 4.x we will support whatever we have today.
5.x will be on newer compiler dependency.
Mvcs 2010 and gcc 4.4?

6.x will again support later versions.

So we can plan how to start planning what to do.

All the best 

Am 15. August 2017 07:48:22 MESZ schrieb Don Lewis <>:
>On 14 Aug, To: wrote:
>> On 14 Aug, Peter kovacs wrote:
>>> Sorry, for my bad english.
>>> I meant that I think that some of the functionality which we have
>>> implemented in helper functions in the past can be retired by using
>>> modern c++11 and later standards. The code will be smaller,and
>>> according to Bjarne Stroustrup also faster. I also would like to
>>> if not ban usage of C code. It makes tmaintainability more
>>> and I do not see the benefit. Honestly even less then the Java
>>> I also don't like helper structures. It is a sign for weak
>>> architecture in my eyes. (But that's naming and structuring of code)
>>> With our small team, I would opt always for less codelines if
>>> possible. Limit is only readability.
>>> I would like to know if there is support from others to remove those
>>> whenever possible with c++11 Or later code? Or what strategy do we
>>> want to head out for.
>> I don't think we can depend on c++11 at this time.  According to our
>> build documentation for Windows, we can't use anything newer than
>> 2008:
>... and the version of gcc in CentOS 5 is of a similar vintage.
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message