From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-02 08:03:30
Vladimir Prus wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]>
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > IMO, we really need to allow changing the set of target where traversal
> > > begings. NoUpdate can be used to remove elements from there. But to add
> > > elements to the set we'd need either the variable or a new builtin.
> > OK, fine with me. I trust your judgement on this.
> I've almost done with it. I've implemented a new builtin, tentatively
> called "UPDATE" which causes target to behave as if they were specified in
> the command line.
When thinking more, I've realized that if we have both UPDATE rule and ARGV
then we can dump the handling of targets in command line that jam has ---
having it now is too messy. The UPDATE rules documentation would read.
* Adds targets to the list of target that jam will attempt to update.
When UPDATE rule is not called at all, jam will try to update "all" target.
If the rule is called somewhere, jam will try to update targets passed to
that rule. In compatibility mode, Jambase will call "UPDATE" on all
non-option elements in the command line.
I realize this is change in interface, but still thing we better go this way.
BTW, I'd need to document this in build_system.htm. David, can we agree to
always process that file with HTML Tidy? Now there's a lot of warnings from
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