Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost

Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-22 00:02:02

On 22/06/2017 00:46, Daniel James wrote:
> On 21 June 2017 at 23:21, Niall Douglas via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> The real problem is when the end user doesn't want the specific
>> combination of hl-sl-dl chosen by the library devs for them. What I was
>> saying what to supply all-::hl, all-::sl and all-::dl where possible,
>> and that probably maps onto what 98% of end users will want. The number
>> which want some weird mashup for ::hl, ::sl and ::dl variants is likely
>> very low.
> 
> I guess this might be a stupid question, but what would the 2% of
> users who want something different do?

You can do truly horrible monkey patching in cmake. So, iterating all
targets and doing regex string match and replace on the internal strings
which are built for you by the cmake commands, all of which are just
convenient syntax sugar over the underlying string properties on targets.

If you've seen any real world cmake in use in real world corporations,
you'll likely have seen extended monkey patching logic before. It's
fairly common. That's what the 2% would end up doing I would think. At
least like most advanced cmake, how to do it is well documented on
stackoverflow.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/