Re: [jamboost] Perforce Jam release candidate

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-06 14:42:50

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

> On 2002-04-06 at 08:55 AM, david.abrahams_at_[hidden] (David Abrahams)
wrote:
> >From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik666_at_[hidden]>
> >
> >> Dave, are you planning to put these changes in before or after we
do
> >the
> >> next Boost.Jam release? If before we need to change the startup
code
> >to
> >> account for these.
> >
> >I hadn't really thought about it. Do you have an opinion?
>
> I'd rather deal with those changes now. More specifically, I have time
this
> weekend to change Jambase to deal with them ;-)

Go for it, then. I assume you're also talking about folding in the jam
source changes?... or did you intend

> >That last change to the Match rule sure seems frivolous, doesn't it?
>
> Yes. But then again we're not using Match, just MATCH :-)

I hope you're joking. Those rules are aliases for one another.

> Which brings up another issue... Should we eventually replace the 2.3
> Jambase with the 2.4 Jambase?

We already talked about this a bit in threads starting here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jamboost/message/144
and here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jamboost/message/216

I am generally in favor of scrapping the older Jambase, since FTJam has
proven to be a dead branch, and since I found a fair amount of
questionable code in it. However, there is still the issue of whether or
not we would be losing support for building Jam executables on any
compilers. Do you happen to know whether Perforce 2.4 supports Borland
et. al?

-Dave