From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-28 12:23:37
On 2002-02-28 at 12:09 PM, david.abrahams_at_[hidden] (David Abrahams) wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik666_at_[hidden]>
>> On 2002-02-28 at 11:25 AM, david.abrahams_at_[hidden] (David Abrahams) wrote:
>> I don't need a global requirement set.
>Sorry, I meant "you" in general, not you specifically.
Now that's a curious semantic slip on my part :-)
>> Mostly I was thinking that
>> variant/requirements/build directives should mirror each other, not just
>> syntax but in semantics.
>In that case I buy the idea that we have a few global variants, but that
>users can define additional variants which are namespaced according to their
>module/subproject by default. Likewise for requirement-sets, but I can't see
>that we'd supply global requirement sets... can you?
requirements stlport : <sysinclude>$(STLPORT_INCLUDE) ... ;
But that's a silly example, which is now better handled by variants, and is
going to be obsolete in V2 anyway :-)
>Maybe it makes sense to use C++-style, rather than Python-style namespacing
>for these things. IOW, the names would be available without qualification to
>all subprojects of a given project.
Yes! That would be cool.
-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera_at_[hidden] - grafik_at_[hidden]
-- 102708583_at_icq - Grafik666_at_AIM - Grafik_at_[hidden]
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk