From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-31 13:49:42
On 2002-03-31 at 01:31 PM, david.abrahams_at_[hidden] (David Abrahams) wrote:
>----- 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
Yea, it does make sense.
>> 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.
No, I was just using the code that I happen to be writting to play with the
various syntax options :-)
But yes, Consistent is good!
-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera_at_[hidden] - grafik_at_[hidden]
-- 102708583_at_icq - Grafik666_at_AIM - Grafik_at_[hidden]
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