From: Markus Werle (numerical.simulation_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-18 05:50:06
David Abrahams wrote:
> I guess that's their problem, since AFAICT we're unable to properly
> detect all the conditions which say whether wchar_t is supported.
Though I appreciate any effort to create a new, modern and
reliable build system I strongly disagree here.
A build system that has no autoconfiguration property like
GNU-autoconf/-make/-header kicks us right back to the
middle-age where we fiddled around with imakefiles and
other design problems that hinder plug'n'play.
If I decide to have this or that flag on, I expect
no library in use to bail out, but to build smoothly.
Library::obey() && Library::disregard_then_missing_functionality().
The way compilers and compiler versions are handled
is the weakest part of the boost libarary (your OP
just mentioned another peak of iceberg).
If boost::build does not serve as a drop-in replacement
for the GNU-autotools then it is no true alternative to ever
I strongly _hope_ boost::build will detect things like wchar_t
automagically, since this is what the UNIX world taught us:
to handle the chaos between 32/64 bit, POSIX, SystemV, BSD, Linux
and the OS some detect problems with.
Markus (still writing configure.in and Makefile.am)
-- Build your own Expression Template Library with Daixtrose! Visit http://daixtrose.sourceforge.net/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk