Re: [jamboost] Targets in command line( Was: I'm back!)

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-16 10:17:44

David Abrahams wrote:
> 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).
> 
> 
> Yep.

Good. Probably, when all of Boost is buildable (I haven't tried Python, 
and there might be some problems with threads), you can try to implement 
this? That's a good change to dig into as yet unknown parts of code.

>>>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.

I get you. However, the only semantic I can think of is:

execute only the actions which are compiles, and which uses
foo/bar/baz.cpp

You know, this is similar to my old idea to run only selected actions, 
which are not universaly available. For example, using a modification of 
your proposed syntax:

bjam --action=bison.bison

Would construct dependency graph for "." and run only "bison.bison" 
actions. Back you what you've proposed, we can allow

bjam --action=*.compile

to run all compile action and some variation of this syntax for compile 
only one source file:

bjam --action=*.compile%foo/bar/baz.cpp

- Volodya