Re: [jamboost] More on features

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-07 09:27:54

From: "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]>

>
> I've started tweaking V2 code according to feature description in the
docs.
> In no time I've realized that the change is going to be really small --
we
> essentially only split free properties into free-valued and incidental.
> Good.

I didn't think things sounded radically different...

> But while we're on this topic, I have anyther suggestion. We were
planning to
> support things like stlport using special generators, which would just
modify
> build properties. I've done some initial work on generators, and they
appear
> to be not so simple a thing. For that reason, I'd prefer not to
complicate
> them more and support stlport et al in a different way.
>
> Let's make "active" properties and features. If build properties for a
main
> target contain an active property, like
>
> <stdlib>stlport
>
> then a previously registered rule will be called which will adjust
properties.

Hmm, "exectuted" properties anyone?
Didn't we just decide we didn't need those?

> Likewise, if there's feature
>
> python-arity
>
> with any value, another rule would translate it into appropriate defines.
> Opinions?

I worry that this approach won't afford us enough control... but suppose
I'm wrong? What would we be giving up by taking this approach? Anything?

What was the motivation for shoving all of this functionality into
generators in the first place?

-Dave

-----------------------------------------------------------
David Abrahams * Boost Consulting
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com