Re: [boost] Formal review: New Boost.Test Library + Jam

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-12 20:45:45

At 07:02 PM 12/12/2001, David Abrahams wrote:

 >we are going to do this a lot, we should probably wrap it up into a new
 >rule.
 >
 >rule lib-and-dll ( base-name : sources * : requirements * : default-build
 >* )
 >{
 >    lib $(base-name)$(SUFLIB) : $(sources) : $(requirements) :
 >$(default-build) ;
 >    lib $(base-name)$(SUFDLL[1]) : $(sources) : $(requirements) :
 >$(default-build) ;
 >}

Would that accommodate the different defines John uses in his regex 
Jamfile?  Although I guess it doesn't actually matter since you could still 
use the old rules if defines were needed.

 >> Minor point: shouldn't the "/" characters be $(SLASH) so they work on a
 >> wider variety of operating systems, for example.
 >
 >I'm committed to the idea that any operating system we build on will work
 >with forward slashes, and I'm willing to do whatever is needed to make 
that
 >work. That may mean translating them to some other string
 >behind-the-scenes.

Good. That's a nice feature.

 >> Second, I think we need a rule that library submissions requiring 
builds
 >> should always be accompanied by appropriate Jamfiles.  Without a
 >known-good
 >> Jamfile, it is very hard to quickly check for code portability.
 >
 >The regex Jamfile is "known good", I think.

I meant a Jamfile "known good" for a newly submitted library.  It was easy 
enough to hack up the regex Jamfile, but that left me wondering if I had 
missed something.  And anyhow, I shouldn't have had to do that as part of 
trying to review the library.

--Beman