Re: [jamboost] Boost.Build V2, Jambase changes...

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-25 12:54:19

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik666_at_[hidden]>

> >2. I'm a little uncomfortable with glob-to-root used to search from a
> >directory to the root, because it will keep searching upward even
after
> >the item is found. I know, I should not worry about this, but I keep
> >thinking about network file systems, etc...
>
> I'll try and change that, it was just easier that way. Question, since
I'm
> using Boost.Jam extensions in this would it then be OK to use a for
loop
> instead of the recursion?

I suppose you mean a while loop? For was in Perforce Jam 2.3.2
Perforce Jam 2.4 has while, so you can use that, too.
I'm sure it's OK to use /semantic/ extensions (i.e. our own builtins) in
Jambase, and I /think/ syntactic extensions (e.g. "for local x in $(y)")
are OK too, but you should check that by rebuilding via invoking a stock
Perforce Jam 2.3.2.

I think the only place you really get in trouble is with the Jamfile
used to rebuild Jam itself, which we'd like to keep compatible with
Perforce Jam.