Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-26 10:21:11

"Jeff Flinn" <TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Is there a reason that all of the xxx_ROOT variables couldn't just be ROOT?
> Isn't the context defined by the "-sTOOLS=..." parameter? Removing these
> additional names would certainly reduce the users conceptual load.
> As I stated elsewhere, the lack of consistency in the TOOLS naming
> convention for VC Toolset adds confusion as well.
> msvc // VC6.5 can we add vc6_5?
> vc7 // VC7 would vc7_0 be better?
> vc-7_1 // VC7.1 why the dash? why not vc7_1?
> These variations add unnecessary perceptual complexity. Kind of like having
> different handles in different places on each cabinet in your kitchen. If
> they were all:
> vc6_5
> vc7_0
> vc7_1
> the pattern is readily visible when viewing the table. The first time users
> comfort level goes up magnitudes. Additionally the Toolset table would be
> better placed immediately after the Item 5 example: 'bjam "-sTOOLS=vc7_1"
> stage'. Also the two different terms 'Toolset' and 'TOOLS' adds complexity
> as well. Using a single term for the concept and the command line parameter
> would further reduce conceptual load.

Yeah, as I mentioned elsewhere, all of this is a trade-off between
investing in BBv1 which will be thrown out soon and spending time on
better things. But if you want to volunteer to make the fixes for
1.33, I'll be happy to give guidance. You may need to do some things
to preserve backward compatibility with the old variable names to
avoid upsetting people.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at