From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-22 21:13:25
>> This practice could be applied to any tools including bjam and wave
> And bcp, and...
> This sounds like a pretty ambitious plan for restructuring what we
> deliver. I do agree wholeheartedly that we need to reconsider the
> structure of what we deliver, but I don't neccessarily think this is
> the right plan. It doesn't seem to have precedent (at least not that
> I've seen), and I'd want to see a much more detailed rationale before
> buying into the details as you've described them.
Actually this discussion moved slightly beside the point. My original point
was that wave should be treated as a tool (like bjam). If (once) we agree on
that we could discuss in detail what should it means.
bjam could in theory be used as library to implement custom build systems.
bcp could in theory be used as library to implement different code split
utilities. wave could be used to build custom c++ preprocessors. We could
even have c++ compiler that could be used as a library to implement custom
compilers for c++ with extensions. But I believe we need to treat them all
as a tools - whatever that means we decide later.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk