From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-11 08:25:08
David Abrahams wrote:
> From: "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]>
>>David Abrahams wrote:
>>>From: "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]>
>>>>Do you agree we have to use the scheme I've described?
>>>Well I'm still not sure I understand the scheme, but I think
>>>like that is needed. I think it might be better if the user had to be
>>>explicit about dependencies on generated headers.
>>As a user, I'd be bored to specify dependencies on generated headers. Do
>>you have any particular way in mind?
>>To clarify my proposition: when dependencies are scanned you know
>>1. Main target, which dependency graph contains the target been scanned
>>2. Complete dependency graph for that main target.
>>So, if you have a header "a_parser.h" you check if the dependency graph
>>has a target of the same name. If it does, you add a dependency to it.
> That rule seems a little too trivial to be correct. Don't you care what the
> #include path is?
> What if that particular a_parser.h wasn't intended?
Ok, you can check if the current dir is in path. I don't think much more
complexity is needed. User expects everything to work as if the file
were generated in the current dir.
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