Re: [jamboost] Progress on issue 578618: Leave jamfile modules for user.

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-09 09:59:21

[2002-08-09] Vladimir Prus wrote:

>Rene Rivera wrote:
>
>> >I could not understand this sentence. What is "It" and why replace the
>>
>> above?
>>
>> Sorry I was refering to the top of the original message. The syntax would
>> go from the current:
>>
>> local attributes = [ project.attributes $(__name__) ] ;
>> local project-root-module = [ $(attributes).get project-root-module ] ;
>>
>> To (this is from code I have in project-root.jam):
>>
>> local project-root-module = [ $(__name__).project-attributes get
>> project-root-module ] ;
>
>Well... there's already "project.attribute" rule which would allow to say
>
>local project-root-module = [ project.attribute $(__name__) 
>project-root-module ] 

Didn't notice that one :-)

>Seems like this is almost equvivalent in verbosity -- only your approach 
>requires to keep some objects in Jamfile modules, while my does not.

True, but I already had one. And a rule to do the job already. I guess it
seems to make sense only if it's something the user is going to call, as it
is for project-root, but not for project attributes.

-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera_at_[hidden] - grafik_at_[hidden]
-- 102708583_at_icq - Grafik666_at_AIM - Grafik_at_[hidden]