Re: [jamboost] projects.jam

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-10 02:21:36

David Abrahams wrote:

> > module Jamfile@/some/dir { ... }
>
> Ah. There is some precedent for type_at_name syntax, which is what I think
> Vladimir is doing here. I would prefer that the Jamfile's module be
> named for its logical (sub)project id, but I'm guessing there is a
> bootstrapping problem here which makes that impractical.

I don't think this is possible. IIRC, we've agreed that not all project will 
have logical project ids.

> > Now normally we would use the above through some variable like:
> >
> > module $(module-name) { ... }
> >
> > The ugly part comes in when we might do this:
> >
> > Jamfile</some/dir>.var = value ;
> > or
> > Jamfile@/some/dir.var = value ;
> >
> > or
> > Jamfile<$(path)>.var = value ;
> > or
> > Jamfile@$(path).var = value ;
>
> At this point, I think Vladimir's approach is right out, since paths can
> contain "."s. Ultimately, I think that means your approach is the best,
> since paths *cannot* generally contain '<', '>'. 

I was using "@" also because it had good mnemonic for me:
"Jamfile *at* /home/ghost/something"

> Since I know we're
> going to have to use paths as arguments to pseudo-function variables, I
> guess I'm starting to lean towards this syntax:
> function<arg1><arg2><arg3>.

Looks clean. Need to try it in practice.

- Volodya