Subject: Re: [boost] To modularize, or not to modularize. What is the plan?
From: stefan (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-05-09 12:49:00
On 2019-05-09 8:43 a.m., Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Rene Rivera wrote:
>> > > Sure.. Actually you wouldn't care what build system a particular
>> > > library author used. As you could use whatever build system you
>> prefer > > to both produce and consume the libraries.
>> But one way to do it is to agree on an API for building, testing,
>> etc. Such an API would be up for design. It could be we have
>> bash/bat/etc, or it could be a single build system, or it could be a
>> single package manager that supports the use case.
> I can't help but notice the similarity with CMake here. It also seems
> to have started with this goal - to provide a "portable" project
> description so that one could then use one's preferred build system,
> after cmake -G "My Preferred Build System". Didn't quite turn out that
> way though.
Right, but rather than provide the required meta information in a
portable way, CMake is (or has become, I don't know its history) a
totally invasive wrapper tool. Quite the anti-pattern, in fact. But that
doesn't mean that the idea of a portable (and tool-agnostic) interface
is wrong, does it ?
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk