From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-29 00:23:24
Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
> At 12:33 AM 10/28/2002, Rene Rivera wrote:
> >> >what the preferred name for jamfiles should be from V2 onwards.
> >> >Possibilities for V2 are: Jamfile, jamfile, Jamfile.jam, or
> >>"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
> >to do.
> >- Windows, KDE, and Gnome users don't have a convenient extension to
> map to
> >their editor.
> Both good points. I think you converted me:-)
I'm mostly convinced, but there's also the familiarity issue to
consider. People are used to 'Makefile'. A guy just came up to me
today and told me he put boost aside because building involved a
program with an unfamiliar name, 'bjam'. I'm not kidding. He didn't
look past the name :(
-- David Abrahams dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk