Re: [jamboost] Perforce Jam release candidate

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-06 16:27:43

On 2002-04-06 at 02:42 PM, david.abrahams_at_[hidden] (David Abrahams) wrote:

>
>----- 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]>
>> >
>> >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.

No, wasn't joking. I didn't know they where aliases :-\ But just looked at
the code, I guess they are.

Maybe I don't wan't to deal with that change right now.

>> 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?

Don't know at all... I don't follow the Perforce changes, other than what
you post about them.

Maybe the thing to do is wait for the 2.4 release (as opposed to the RC),
and then look at that Jambase.

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