From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-26 17:10:53
"Jeff Flinn" <TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> "Jeff Flinn" <TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> "Rene Rivera" <grafik.list_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>>> 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
>>> 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
Well, yeah. The elements of the TOOLS variable get "-tools.jam"
appended and that's treated as a toolset file name.
> 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?
That's just hard to program and maintain.
> In other words are the following doable?
> bjam "-sTOOLS=vc6_5" install
> bjam "-sTOOLS=vc7_0" install
> bjam "-sTOOLS=vc7_1" install
Sure, but the easy way is just to rename the toolset files.
But seriously, you really are comfortable with the underscore?
-- 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