Re: [jamboost] Build request interface

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-28 10:16:30

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]>
To: <jamboost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [jamboost] Build request interface

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
> > > Okay with me.
> > > But... Can we handle command line arguments? Won't they be
> >
> > unconditionally
> >
> > > treated as target names by jam?
> >
> > It's easy enough to cause the argument to be turned into a NOTFILE
target
> > with no special updating actions.
>
> Heck! It's not that easy. For example
>
> bjam debug
>
> Yes, we can create NOTFILE target called "debug" but jam will then try to
> update only that target, instread of updating all, which is desired. I
can
> suggest these solutions
>
> 1. Make targets like "debug" depend on "all" if there are no explicit
targets
> in the command line.
>
> 2. Introduce new "TOUCH" builtin and apply it to the "all" target is
there
> are no explicit targets in the command line.

Isn't that called "ALWAYS"?

> 3. Introduce new variable, say "TARGETS_TO_UPDATE". Initialize them from
> command line as usual. When running updating actions, consult this
variable.
> This way, Jam code will be able to modify the set of target that should
be
> updated.
>
>
> I think approach 3 is the most reasonable. All others looks more like
ugly
> workarounds to me. What do you think?

I hate adding new global variables. Can we do it with ALWAYS and/or
TOUCH/UNTOUCH rules? If that gets too messy, I agree we should just go with
the variable.

-Dave