[boost] Re: Customer Friendlier Boost Installation

From: Jeff Flinn (TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-26 15:36:48

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:uekbtq4f8.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> "Jeff Flinn" <TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> "Rene Rivera" <grafik.list_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:4295E416.6030803_at_redshift-software.com...
>>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>>>>and the inconsistency in naming for the VC targets:
>>>>>
>>>>>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?
>>>>
>>>> The dash is there for dumb reasons: we call the toolset files
>>>> <toolsetname>-tools.jam

...

>> Do most users ever see(or need be concerned with) what these parameters
>> eventually expand to?
>
> I don't understand the question.

The previous response implied that the "-sTOOLS=vc-7_1" was used to generate 
file names like "vc-7_1-tools.jam". This led me to believe that the dashes 
and dots are currently required to ease the generation of such filenames. 
I've never needed to know what was going on under the hood of bjam/build in 
the past. So if more user friendly names, I'd think that I wouldn't ever 
notice that "sTOOLS=vc7_1" generated/used file(s) named "vc-7_1-tools.jam". 
So couldn't there be more separation between the presentation and 
representation of the build system? In other words are the following doable?

bjam "-sTOOLS=vc6_5" install
bjam "-sTOOLS=vc7_0" install
bjam "-sTOOLS=vc7_1" install

Thanks, Jeff