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

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-31 13:54:11

On 2002-03-31 at 01:47 PM, david.abrahams_at_[hidden] (David Abrahams) wrote:

>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
>To: <jamboost_at_[hidden]>
>Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 1:31 PM
>Subject: Re: [jamboost] Boost.Build V2, load behaviour part 2.
>
>
>>
>> I wonder if it
>> wouldn't be better just to be consistent:
>>
>> $(.$(module-name).$(name).docs)
>>
>> ?? Just musing here. No strong position on it.
>
>Changed my mind; I hate it.
>
>Back to $($(module-name).$(name).docs) or $($(module-name),$(name).docs)
>
>
>$(*$(module-name).$(name).docs) might be OK, but I see no reason to push
>it.
>
>OK, what about this rule: global variable names contain a "."
>If you don't have a better place to put it, put it at the beginning.
>
>$(.foo) is an intended-global variable expansion
>
>$($(foo).bar) is also an intended-global variable expansion.
>
>$(foo) is not an intended global.

Actually, what I'm having problems with right now is figuring out what
"global" means. I have variables in the doc module, that given your
suggestion, would be global. But in my view are really local to the module.
They aren't meant to get accessed by anyone outside of the doc rules.

So question is do we need to identify those two kinds?

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