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

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-31 13:25:12

On 2002-03-31 at 01:07 PM, david.abrahams_at_[hidden] (David Abrahams) wrote:

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

I was just trying out different things :-) Right now it looks like so:

$(module-name),$(name).brief = $(first-sentence) ;
$(module-name),$(name).docs = $(docs) ;

for local line in $($(module-name),$(name).docs)
{
ECHO " "$(line) ;
}

Which is almost back where we started. But it is readable and terse.

>> 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.

That's what I ended up with :-) I'll use gristed elements to do things like
<default-value>, <argument>, etc.

>> >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?

Oh, yea, it seems fine to me. I plan on avoiding globals anyway ;-) The only
drawback I see is that .my-global is somewhat less visibly obvious than
*my-global.

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