Re: Jamfile vs. jamfile vs. Jamfile.jam vs jamfile.jam (was... [boost] ** type traits broken **)

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-28 00:33:51

[2002-10-27] Beman Dawes wrote:

>At 12:01 PM 10/27/02, Rene Rivera wrote:
>
> >[2002-10-27] John Maddock wrote:
> >>What happened to the "Jamfile"'s then?
> >
> >Historical baggage ;-) It will be possible with V2 to use the lowercase
> >version "jamfile", or even "jamfile.jam". And perhaps we should decide 
>now
> >what the preferred name for jamfiles should be from V2 onwards.
> >Possibilities for V2 are: Jamfile, jamfile, Jamfile.jam, or jamfile.jam.
>
>"jamfile" gets my vote.

I personally prefer "jamfile.jam"...

"jamfile" has the disadvantages that:
- then we have a bunch of "Jamfile" to "jamfile" renames to ask SourceForge
to do.
- Windows, KDE, and Gnome users don't have a convenient extension to map to
their editor.

-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera_at_[hidden] - grafik_at_[hidden]
-- 102708583_at_icq - Grafik666_at_AIM - Grafik_at_[hidden]