Re: [Boost-build] [bbv2] RFC: Repeated usage requirements.

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-03 11:47:32

Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Sunday 02 April 2006 04:42, David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> > After thinking on it for a few days that is certainly one viable route.
>> > Also the suggestion to use "build-requirements" for consistency is good.
>> > Perhaps that should be added as an alias for "requirements". With that
>> > in mind a few other possibilities spring to mind:
>>
>> I think we should keep experimenting.  For example:
>>
>>   lib foo : foo.cpp
>>
>>       self:      # the default
>>         <define>COOL=1
>>
>>       all:       # or maybe "self+users:"
>>         <define>ENABLE_LOG=1
>>
>>       users:
>>         <link>shared:<define>BUILD_DLL=1
>>     ;
>
> Using ":" as last character of word to indicate something looks pretty 
> confusing to me, because now you have ":" used in two different ways in the 
> same invocation of a rule. Using:
>
>   lib foo : foo.cpp 
>   : self <define>COOL=1
>   : all <define>ENABLE_LOG
>   : users <link>shared:<define>BUILD_DLL=1
>   ;
>
> loks more clear to me.

  self:

may be potentially confusing, but IMO it is not nearly as confusing as
writing

  self

by itself used as a label describing the list of things that comes
next.

It would be nice if there was another character that didn't lead to
this confusion.

   self:: <define>COOL=1

   self<== <define>COOL=1

   self<- <define>COOL=1

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com