From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-18 08:06:43
----- Original Message -----
From: "Toon Knapen" <toon_at_[hidden]>
> Jeremy Siek wrote:
> > Wow, jam does look pretty cool. I love how it has the equivalent of
> > "makedepend" built right in.
> My only concern/question here is if we would stil be able
> to take a 'Component Based Development' approach.
Still? Is that something we have a special facility for today?
> The dependencies of one component/library upon others needs to be
> decided at design-time. (e.g. in my projects the makefile of the
> module decides of which other modules files can be included)
> Adding the real '#include's is done at implementation time.
> But include's are quickly added to just make it compile instead
> of trying to understand the consequences of this extra include.
> Thus including a file of a module/lib which was not intended
> to be included at design time should not be compile-able.
> However, tools like makedepend tend to make it even
> more easier to make this kind of mistake ?
If you consider that a mistake, surely avoiding makedepend does nothing to
prevent it! Avoiding makedepend or an equivalent only causes confusion
/much/ later during maintenance when, say config.hpp is changed to fix a bug
but the regression tests still fail.
> (but on the other hand even Ratrional's SCM has
> no support for a CBD approach)
Good point. Let's not complicate things by demanding that our build tool
satisfy requirements which have never been seen in any build tool on earth!
If you want to add some support for CBD to boost, please feel free to make a
proposal. In the meantime, finding a portable, powerful build tool has been
enough of a challenge that I'm just praying Jam will fulfill its apparent
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk