From: Hartmut Kaiser (HartmutKaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-23 04:39:37
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> Actually this discussion moved slightly beside the point. My
> original point was that wave should be treated as a tool
> (like bjam).
Still, besides your believes you haven't provided any valueable argument for
this. There are at least 3 projects going on I know of where Wave is used as
a library and is incorporated into a tool on its own. I'm sure, with the
inclusion of Wave into Boost this trend will increase.
> If (once) we agree on that we could discuss in
> detail what should it means.
We have not agreed yet.
> 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.
Here I've lost you again, *sigh*.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk