From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-19 04:18:21
>> > Would autocnf be integrated into boost build process we
>> could prevent
>> > such ugly Preprocessor defines.
"Ugly" is subjective. I'm not sure why you find you find C preprocessor
uglier that some other non-standard Unix-only preprocessor.
>> No. I've read many of your replies about autoconf by now. And
>> I'm unclear if you are purposefully not understanding other
>> peoples explanations as to why it's not helpful. Both in the
>> context of the original problem and many others.
> Sorry - maybe I'm too stupid I still don't know why autoconf is not
> A lot of projects use autoconf for portable programming (at least for
"at least for Unix" is part of the problem. Windows users don't have m4,
don't have shell, and don't have zillion of Unix tools that m4 macros might
Speaking as Boost.Build maintainer, it would be great if Boost.Build support
auto-configuration, including compile, link and run tests, for the cases
where preprocessor is not adequate, but when this happen, that will be using
Python or Boost.Jam language.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk