Re: [jamboost] Boost.Build V2, load behaviour part 2.

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-31 13:07:15

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

> After writing a bit more code with the ":" it's not as clear as I
thought. And
> it has one drawback, which we didn't notice before, it doesn't work
:-) It
> collides with $(var:D)

Uh, yeah, "minor" drawback ;-)

> , etc. I started using ";" as a subsitute. I'm leaning
> more towards the "<>" use, it does stand out:
>
> long ?= $(short) ;
> rule,brief,doc<$(module-name),$(name)> = $(brief) ;
> rule,short,doc<$(module-name),$(name)> = $(short) ;
> rule,long,doc<$(module-name),$(name)> = $(long) ;

Err, why the commas in the initial part of the name?
rule-long-doc<$(module-name),$(name)> would seem much more apprpriate to
me.

> >No need for "doc," is there, since everything is strictly local to
the
> >doc module?
>
> By now they are, they didn't start out that way :-)

OK.

> >(BTW, I'm still worried about having to invoke 3 separate rules to
write
> >the docs for a rule or variable. Lots of times I'm lucky if I can
think
> >of one way to say it, much less 3. Won't we end up with a patchwork
of
> >brief, short, long comments?
> >Also, I hope there will be few or possibly no variables introduced by
> >the system, so we won't need user-level variable docs
> >)
>
> Right now long-s are optional, but I could take the Javadoc approach
of using
> the first sentence as the brief?

That sounds plausible. Personally, I'd be happy with just one.

> >> "_". Capitalizing things seems contrary to the Jam norm,
> >
> >??? Perforce caps all their rule names.
>
> Yes, but we haven't.

OK. It's contrary to the boost norm.

> >> I kind of liked the gCAPS, except for the caps. But without the
caps
> >> it's gcaps :-(. So an initial character to identify globals would
be
> >ideal.
> >> And the only one I can think that sorta fits is "*". For example:
> >
> >Hmm, I'm probably headed off in a dangerous direction here, but what
> >about:
> >
> > .my-global = list of things ;
> > do-something $(.my-global) ;
> >
> >That has a nice consistency with the idea of "." as scoping operator
(we
> >use a :: prefix to reach global scope in C++).

Any comments on this?