C++11

[barche]

Would it be OK to start requiring C++11 compiler support? Especially range-based for loops and the auto keyword are nice features, and it's frustrating not being able to use them in new code while the compiler support is widely available.

To do this properly in CMake, we should use the target_compile_features option, which is available since CMake 3.1, so the minimal required version would be bumped up because of this.

[wdeconinck]

Im in favor too.

On 09 Oct 2015, at 14:08, Bart Janssens [email protected] wrote:

Would it be OK to start requiring C++11 compiler support? Especially range-based for loops and the auto keyword are nice features, and it's frustrating not being able to use them in new code while the compiler support is widely available.

To do this properly in CMake, we should use the target_compile_features option, which is available since CMake 3.1, so the minimal required version would be bumped up because of this.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[tlmquintino]

I agree.

Tiago Quintino
(sent from my phone)

On 9 Oct 2015, at 12:08, Bart Janssens [email protected] wrote:

Would it be OK to start requiring C++11 compiler support? Especially range-based for loops and the auto keyword are nice features, and it's frustrating not being able to use them in new code while the compiler support is widely available.

To do this properly in CMake, we should use the target_compile_features option, which is available since CMake 3.1, so the minimal required version would be bumped up because of this.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.