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

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

$($(module-name).$(name).docs)

have a certain ring to it, especially since $(modulename).$(name) makes
sense?

> >> 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.

I'm looking forward to seeing this.

> >> >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.

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:

$(.$(module-name).$(name).docs)

?? Just musing here. No strong position on it.

-D