Re: [boost] Re: status/Jamfile messed up for type_traits...

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-02 11:52:22

"John Maddock" <jm_at_[hidden]> writes:

> > Ugh, now I see what's happening (roughly). It's the monstrosity
> > below. Aside from being hideous, unmaintainable, and slowing the whole
> > build process, is there some reason to ad this to the Jamfile? Is
> > there a reason that these type_traits tests which all use identical
> > boilerplate could not use some custom rules to eliminate code
> > duplication?
> >
> > Sorry to be so arch, but if the boost test Jamfiles spin out of
> > control it's going to make maintenance difficult for everybody...
> 
> Don't apologise, as you will have noticed the type_traits tests are in a
> state of flux right now, they will settle down soon (honestly), and yes that
> build everything test will be removed from status/Jamfile, it will stay in
> libs/type_traits/test/Jamfile though as it is sometimes useful to build and
> check everything at once with the more conforming compilers.

I don't see how that will make any difference. It certainly won't
speed up whole-system testing. If you don't refactor the rule
invocations it's going to be a maintenance nightmare wherever you put
that code. Type traits are central to the operation of many boost
libraries, and if people make changes which break them on many
compilers (ahem! cough! -- they're broken now!) , somebody has to dive
in and start running the tests.

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