From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-31 13:31:08
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik666_at_[hidden]>
> 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.
I almost hate to mention this, but doesn't
have a certain ring to it, especially since $(modulename).$(name) makes
> >> Right now long-s are optional, but I could take the Javadoc
> >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
> <default-value>, <argument>, etc.
I'm looking forward to seeing this.
> >> >Hmm, I'm probably headed off in a dangerous direction here, but
> >> >about:
> >> >
> >> > .my-global = list of things ;
> >> > do-something $(.my-global) ;
> >> >
> >> >That has a nice consistency with the idea of "." as scoping
> >> >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 ;-)
> drawback I see is that .my-global is somewhat less visibly obvious
what about your pseudo-functions? Those are globals, no? I assume you
meant to exclude those from your previous statement. I wonder if it
wouldn't be better just to be consistent:
?? Just musing here. No strong position on it.
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