Re: [jamboost] Build variants

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-16 08:34:31

David Abrahams wrote:
> From: "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]>
> 
>>Am I missing something?
> 
> 
> Yes: it's a lot more work to treat variants specially than to simply treat
> them as any other composite feature. Why deduce all the missing default
> properties for a variant when they might need to be overridden by a build
> request or a derived variant anyway? It's easier just to fill in the
> defaults when you know the build request, requirements, and variant.

The purpose of non-optional properties is that default value of most 
properties is considered implitly present in build variants and not 
generate additional subvariant directories, right?

So, you should either add more logic to property.as-path, or 
non-optional properties should be included in expansion of the composite 
properties which correspond to build variants.

Seems I still miss something...

- Volodya