From: Hendrik Schober (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-31 18:17:21
David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > > "Parsing jam file"?
> > > > Or better yet: "parsing build rules"?
> > >
> > > Well, it's much more than parsing. [...]
> > "Determining what needs to be built"?
> Not really accurate.
> > "Determining the work required to build Boost"?
> Kinda vague.
> I guess I'd say "building dependency graph." That's about as accurate
> as possible in this case.
Honestly, I think you're putting much too much
effort into this. For one, this was only a small
destraction. Further, those who know what the
tool is doing exactly obviously didn't mind the
pause. And those who are to be destracted by it
don't know enough to appreciate these efforts.
Heck, maybe even another "be patient..." would
If I just know the thing doesn't hang but it's
doing a lengthy operation everything will be a
lot better than it was.
> > There's always the old standby approach of printing, in
> > succession, the following strings:
> > "\r-"
> > "\r\"
> > "\r|"
> > "\r/"
> > repeat
> Does that really work reliably and portably, or are some people going to see
> I suppose it's not much worse than dots if they do. But if it comes
> out as
> everyone's gonna be sorry.
How about only printing
etc.? This is something to be used by developers.
They have an idea of how long it takes to compile
a bunch of cpp files and put them into a library
and won't get nervous if the tool just eats up
CPU time without emitting something for a few
-- SpamTrap_at_[hidden] is never read I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org "Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving" Terry Pratchett
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk