Re: [boost] 1.43 build broken on MSVC 8.0

Subject: Re: [boost] 1.43 build broken on MSVC 8.0
From: OvermindDL1 (overminddl1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-21 21:53:39

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> AMDG
>
> Rene Rivera wrote:
>>
>> On 5/21/2010 1:06 PM, Beman Dawes wrote:
>>>
>>> IIUC, the OP used this command line after a booststrap:
>>>
>>> Â  Â  ./bjam.exe --architecture=amd64 --address-model=64 -j2 link=shared
>>> ...
>>>
>>> and Volodya replied that "Neither--architecture=amd64 nor
>>> --address-model=64 ever worked."
>>>
>>> Thus the comment about the possibility of adding a check for
>>> non-existent switches.
>>>
>>> Providing some options that require no "-', some that require "-", and
>>> some that require "--" may make sense from an internal perspective,
>>> but this is terribly confusing to the user. So the user often makes
>>> mistakes. To have the mistakes silently ignored makes it difficult or
>>> impossible for the ordinary user.
>>
>> Ah, yes, we've had that come up before.. Unfortunately the "--" options
>> are an open set. So it's rather hard to actually detect when those are
>> non-existent.
>
> Is there some way that we could mark options as used?
> Could we require everything to go through the options
> module instead of doing a raw match against ARGV?
> At least, would it be reasonable to warn about arguments
> that would look like properties if they didn't have the --?

We have a library in Boost to handle all this, why is it itself not
used?  If it is because of missing functionality, that indicates
something in that library that should be fixed.  As I recall,
program_options also warns about incorrect flags.