From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-30 02:57:53
David Abrahams wrote:
> * The "Depends" rule is invoked in several places, but there is also a
> "depends" method. Is the intention to invoke the built-in "DEPENDS"
> I know other spellings are possible, but I prefer the
> all-uppercase usage for the builtin primitives. It helps to distinguish
> * class virtual-target is not derived from class target. Was that
Yes, it was. However the comments at the top of the file are wrong. And the
'target' class should be name 'abstract-target'. I believe there's not enough
similarity between abstract and virtual targets to make then derive from a
> * virtual-target.action seems a bit tricky to me. Perhaps it would be
> better to go with a simple get-action/set-action pair?
Not sure. I tend to you the same scheme for accessors/mutators in C++ and I
don't think it's all that alien to jam.
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