Re: [jamboost] features convention

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-10 02:01:47

David Abrahams wrote:

> > I'm writing property.make helper rule which will take care of
> > implicit values.
>
> There's already feature.expand-subfeatures. Doesn't that do what you want?

Oh... I'd never thought "expand-subfeatures" has anything to do with implicit 
values, but the comment says it does. The "property.make" rule is more 
convenient, thought --- it takes several properties at once.

> P.S. I'm not very happy with the module names and division of
> responsibility between feature.jam and property.jam. Maybe property.jam
> should be renamed property-set.jam and some of the functionality moved
> there.

I'm not sure. I've posted another desktop note about that, but, frankly, I'm 
not likely to consider this soon.

- Volodya