Re: patch boost-base.jam project wide settings

From: witt_ive (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-28 14:10:24

--- In jamboost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote: 
> 
> 
> Maybe it makes sense to use C++-style, rather than Python-style 
namespacing 
> for these things. IOW, the names would be available without 
qualification to 
> all subprojects of a given project. 
> 

I do not like this idea. It would let us end up with three different 
namespacing schemes 

1 variant (global) 
2 requirement (C++ like) 
3 target (Python like) 

This would be an 50% increase in complexity compared to the current 
system, with small if any benefit. 

As I can see introducing option 2 does not solve any real problem. 
Subprojects do know the path to the root anyway its in the 
sub-project rule. Even if the sub-project rule is eliminated one can 
reasonably assume knowledge about a certain part of the tree 
stucture. And to be safe no project should try to grab beyond this 
known part of the structure. To me this is just too clever. 

I recently introduced boost jam with templates to a colleague. He 
installed a jam build system with templates in his project after a 
30s introduction to the template feature. The introduction goes like 
this: "Works like target dependencies, copies req's.". This might 
indicate that handling req's like targets fits with the rest of the 
system. 

Thomas