Re: [jamboost] patch boost-base.jam project wide settings

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-26 11:26:09

On 2002-02-26 at 11:10 AM, david.abrahams_at_[hidden] (David Abrahams) wrote:

>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik666_at_[hidden]>
>To: <jamboost_at_[hidden]>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 10:59 AM
>Subject: Re: [jamboost] patch boost-base.jam project wide settings
>
>
>> On 2002-02-26 at 12:08 PM, witt_at_[hidden] (Thomas Witt) wrote:
>>
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >The attached patch introduces a new rule template that can be used to
>> >conveniently define project wide requirements. Furthermore
>> >a change to the with-command-file rule is made to allow for
>> >additional prefix string that contains non-sources. I need this to
>circumvent
>> >cmdline restrictions with long libpathes on windows.
>>
>> Don't know about the with-command-file stuff, but defining project wide
>> requirements is already supported by the use of "variant". And is the main
>> reason I extented the "variant" rule. Your example could be written as
>such
>> instead...
>
>No, they're really different features. Thomas' feature could, for example,
>be used to specify the build requirements for Boost.Python modules, but one
>should still be able to build any module in any of the variants
>(debug/release/etc.)

I just don't see that they are different features. To me it looks like a
different desing and implementation of the same feature. And is possibly a
better way of solving the problem, given that it doesn't tie it to the
variants.

I don't see how you can't use the "variant" to specify requirements for
Boost.Python modules. The important rules take the local-build argument, and
they call declare-local-target. Did I miss something when looking at the
python.jam code?

But, to me using the variant matches more closely to what MSVC, CodeWarrior,
and other IDEs do (although CW doesn't have inherited settings).

>I like his feature in principle and would be interested in seeing some
>documentation.
>I think "template" isn't the best name. Probably "requirement-set" would be
>better.

Yes, to both those statements ;-)

-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera_at_[hidden] - grafik_at_[hidden]
-- 102708583_at_icq - Grafik666_at_AIM - Grafik_at_[hidden]