From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-17 04:52:21
From: "Thomas Witt" <witt_at_[hidden]>
> On Sunday 16 June 2002 17:28, David Abrahams wrote:
> > From: "Thomas Witt" <witt_at_[hidden]>
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I would like to change the signature of the with-command-file rule
> > > from ( rule-name targets * : sources * ) to ( rule-name targets + :
> > options *
> > Why not ( rule-name targets * : sources * : options * ) ? That would at
> > least be perfectly backwards-compatible.
> I rejected this ordering as it seemed to be just to unnatural (this is
> best adjective I could think of, though it might still be the wrong one
Why? Targets are normally specified via "rulename targets... : sources... :
> Having it this way is the easier fix, but I might be a constant source of
> trouble in the future, as people will get the ordering wrong. What do you
> think ?
Why do you think people would get it wrong.
> Aside from that I do not understand why it is "targets *". IIUC the
> name is targets so it should be "targets +".
well, not exactly: the command file name is derived from targets.
However, you're right that there must be more than one target.
Occasionally I went through and added signatures to older rules. In these
cases I sometimes played it a little bit conservative to avoid breaking
some case I couldn't imagine just then. This appears to be one of those.
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