From: witt_ive (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-28 14:10:24
--- In jamboost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> Maybe it makes sense to use C++-style, rather than Python-style
> for these things. IOW, the names would be available without
> all subprojects of a given project.
I do not like this idea. It would let us end up with three different
1 variant (global)
2 requirement (C++ like)
3 target (Python like)
This would be an 50% increase in complexity compared to the current
system, with small if any benefit.
As I can see introducing option 2 does not solve any real problem.
Subprojects do know the path to the root anyway its in the
sub-project rule. Even if the sub-project rule is eliminated one can
reasonably assume knowledge about a certain part of the tree
stucture. And to be safe no project should try to grab beyond this
known part of the structure. To me this is just too clever.
I recently introduced boost jam with templates to a colleague. He
installed a jam build system with templates in his project after a
30s introduction to the template feature. The introduction goes like
this: "Works like target dependencies, copies req's.". This might
indicate that handling req's like targets fits with the rest of the
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