From: Markus Schoepflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-18 11:38:48
--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Markus Schoepflin" <markus.schoepflin_at_g...>
> > Hi David,
> > --- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> > > That was in the original design, but I punted when I ran into a
> > problem that
> > > looked like inheritance. I'm not sure I remember exactly, but I
> > think it was
> > > something like this: what happens if you derive a variant my-
> > from
> > > debug, then specify <debug><define>FOO in your target
> > Should
> > > FOO be defined in your "my-debug" build?
> > I would certainly expect this.
> Which? (I asked two questions above).
Hmm, I can see two question marks but I can't see two questions...
Sorry, english isn't my native language, maybe I'm missing something.
> > > What happens if you add
> > > <my-debug><define>FUBAR?
> > <debug> gets FOO and <my-debug> gets FOO and FUBAR.
> > > Is the behavior the same for non-free features as
> > > for free features?
> > Yes.
> It can't be exactly the same. You only get one setting for any non-
> feature. You can't have both <inlining>full and <inlining>off, so I
> you'd like to see non-free feature overrides?
> > What I had in mind was some kind of basic variant (like debug or
> > release) and some other variant which inherits all the settings
> > the basic variant but enables this or that feature, giving me the
> > variants debug-feature1, release-feature1, debug-feature-2, ...
> You can get a similar effect by setting, e.g. BUILD = release
Hmm, this looks interesting.
> I'll put your request into the mix. If you would like to volunteer
> implement some things, your request could get handled much faster ;-
Oops, I don't know if I could be of any help. I'm quite a fair C++
programmer, but this JAM stuff scares me a little.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk