Re: [jamboost] Property utilities

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-03 07:54:51

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]>

> I'm now thinking that compose-requirements should really be the same
as
> apply-requrements. I believe that we should treat inherited
requirements in
> the same "soft" manner. For example, if parent has <optimization>off
> and current project require <optimization>space, we just ignore
> <optimization>off. If parent has <rtti>on and current project require
> <rtti>off, we just refuse to accept such requirements. This is the
semantics
> I suggest in
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jamboost/message/819
>
> Anybody has any objections?

No, that sounds fine. However, we need a better name. I would like
something which suggests which of the requirements lists gets precedence
in case of link-compatible options. Ideas:

override-requirements
refine-requirements

I like #2. At least there's a vague implication that the old properties
come first and the additional ones come 2nd (but only vague). Can we do
better?

-Dave