Re: [jamboost] issues with targets.jam

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"
> rule? 

Yes.

> I know other spellings are possible, but I prefer the
> all-uppercase usage for the builtin primitives. It helps to distinguish
> intent.

Okay.

> * class virtual-target is not derived from class target. Was that
> intentional?

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 
common base.

> * 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.

- Volodya