Re: upgrade to c++11

[David Kastrup]

immanuel litzroth <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:58 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> immanuel litzroth <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:20 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> >
>> >> They are also humongous, which means a quite larger amount of work
>> >> for GUB.
>> >>
>> > What do you mean with humongous? Boost is large because it has a lot
>> > of stuff.
>>
>> What's your point?  "has a lot of stuff" is not independently useful.
>>
>  Well, I don't know GUB so I have idea as to the work involved or
> whether it would even make sense.

Well, what's your argument for it making sense?

> I do know that writing stuff that boost has on offer is a very bad
> idea.

Do you have any example for Boost functionality that would have been
written independently in LilyPond?  Or is this just a theoretical
consideration right now?

> I also have some experience with c++11 and that has been really
> good. That's all folks.

Again: where is the actual relation to the LilyPond code base?  Without
any actual _projects_. like auditing all uses of "list" and seeing which
instances could perfectly well be replaced by the more space-, time-,
and code-efficient "forward_list" instead, this seems like a pretty
academic undertaking.

-- 
David Kastrup