Re: [jamboost] container.jam question

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-02 11:41:53

Rene Rivera wrote:
> [2002-07-02] Vladimir Prus wrote:
> >Rene Rivera wrote:
> >> Getting at subelements is bit tricky, but jam doesn't have an easy way
> :
> :-(
> :
> >> l0 = [ $(l).at 0 ] ;
> >> ECHO [ $(l0).at 0 ] ; # >> 1
> >
> >Can we make this work without second level lists?
> >
> > l0 = [ $(l).at 0 ] ;
> > ECHO $(l0[1]) ;
> >
> >I'm quite happy with jam lists, and most rules now take jam lists. Second
> >level list is a little bit overkill for my task.
>
> The closest you can get to that is:
>
> $(l0) = $($(l).self.value[1]) ;
> ECHO $($(l0).self.value[1]) ;
>
> I think that will work. Maybe Dave has some better syntax up his sleeve
> when it comes to class'es ;-)

I'm thinking that we probably can wrap values in some class when putting it 
to container and unwrapping it when extracting.... ?

- Volodya