Re: [boost] Boost CMake support - Request for Comment

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost CMake support - Request for Comment
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-10 16:55:27

AMDG

On 10/10/2018 10:32 AM, Richard via Boost wrote:
> In article <c7576691-195e-7ed6-eb4a-4b3a76fa8a08_at_[hidden]>,
>     Stefan Seefeld via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
>> On 2018-10-09 05:13 PM, Richard via Boost wrote:
>>
>>> In article <ppgt9u$6a1$1_at_[hidden]>,
>>>      Edward Diener via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Good ! Then I am sure you will be glad to be nominated as the person who
>>>> converts all instances of the Boost Build use of this feature,
>>> You can nominate about whatever you like, but I am not volunteering
>>> for anything in boost.  It takes forever to get anything done.
>>
>> I think the point wasn't so much to nominate you,
> 
> Au contraire, he quite specifically nominates me in the first line I
> quoted and further implies that I will be happy about it.
> 
> The question he raised was whether or not CMake supports this kind of
> feature testing and I simply pointed out that it has been supported
> for many years.
> 
> Why he goes further and tries to volunteer me for work is beyond my
> understanding.
> 

It's because you misread the post that you
responded to:

>> ...it will be difficult
>> translating this to CMake terms, if such a similar feature exists in
CMake.
>
> CMake has supported this for years, it is not a blocking issue.

>From Edward's later responses, it seems clear that he really
did mean exactly what he said rather than "...if a similar
feature *does not* exist...", which is what you responded to.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe