From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-16 09:27:01
Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> I like your theory. Specifically, if we have element in command line for
> which we can't find an abstract target, then we generate graph for the
> project in "." and look for all virtual targets which the requested name
> (and type).
> > Yeah, it is... though I think we ought to consider supporting such
> > things as:
> > bjam --compile=foo/bar/baz.cpp
> > bjam --preprocess=foo/bar.cpp
> > and probably also:
> > bjam --recompile=foo/bar/baz.cpp # no dependency checking!
> Well, the last thing is just "-a" switch to bjam. About "--compile"...
> is it in any way different from
> bjam foo/bar/baz.o
It's a push -vs- pull thing. When I "just want to compile this file" I
don't want to have to think about what kind of target it generates or
how to name it.
-- David Abrahams * Boost Consulting dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
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