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

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.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.
> 
> 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 :(

FWIW-ly,
Dave

-- 
                    David Abrahams
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com