From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-22 23:07:59
"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> 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.
But that's backwards! I certainly can't agree that it should be
treated like a tool without understanding its implications.
> bjam could in theory be used as library to implement custom build
Not really, its design is not appropriate for use as a library.
> 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.
It's hard to see how you can hold a belief so strongly without even
understanding what it means.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting 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