On 15/05/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">John Maddock</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:john@johnmaddock.co.uk">john@johnmaddock.co.uk</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Irrespective of what happens with the CMake vs BBv2 debate, it&#39;s apparent<br>that there is still plenty of support for bbv2: indeed, I would echo<br>comments that it&#39;s a pleasure to use, provided you don&#39;t need to dig in and
<br>write new rules yourself :-)</blockquote><div><br> It definitely seems that way. Heh.<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
2) Better docs.&nbsp;&nbsp;Yes, I know it&#39;s been said before, but we really must get<br>the existing toolsets and their options documented.&nbsp;&nbsp;This need not take too<br>long if someone would step up and volunteer to do it.</blockquote>
<div><br>I&#39;ve been looking through the code and was planning on compiling a list of all the compiler flags, and a separate list of all &#39;&lt;whatever&gt;&#39; options (features, I think?). If anyone else wants to have a go too then don&#39;t let me stop you; I _may_ get sidetracked. :)
<br><br>I get the feeling that jam, although nice and expressive for the top-level Jamfiles, lends itself to spaghettism in some cases. A bit like perl, IMHO; I&#39;m having trouble finding any of the code &#39;logical&#39;. That said, I&#39;m not suggesting any alternatives. Hopefully documentation is all we need.
<br><br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">5) More BBv2 developers :-)&nbsp;&nbsp;I actually think we do tools rather well - both
<br>quickbook and BBv2 are so very nearly where they need to be, but just need<br>that final push that only more developers (and a wider audience) can bring.<br>Part of the problem here is that Boost attracts folks interested in C++
<br>libraries, and who don&#39;t necessarily want to spend their time hacking<br>Jamfiles or whatever.&nbsp;&nbsp;I&#39;m not sure how solve this, unless maybe these tools<br>can acquire a life of their own outside of Boost as well as within it.
</blockquote><div><br>There was talk on the Boost wiki about a python rewrite. Has that stalled? If so, are there any public code fragments of it about, anyone?<br></div><br>Regards,<br>Darren</div>