From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-28 02:07:06
Rene Rivera wrote:
>> I'd only prefer
>>to use more general name, something like "group", because there's
>>no reason why you can't use main targets together with source files.
>> group os-abstraction : win.cpp my_i18_lib : <os>NT ;
> I'm not sure about using "group" instead of "source", for various reasons...
> 1) "source" seems more directly intuitive than "group". Seeing as it maps
> directly to the intended use in "<target-rule> <target-name> : <**sources**>
> : <requirements> ;"
Hmm... have to agree.
> 2) I don't see a problem in using "source" with main targets as you point
> out. This seems perfectly obvious to me also:
> lib my_i18_lib : source.cpp ;
> source os-abstraction : win.cpp my_i18_lib : <os>NT ;
Hmmmm... have to agree too.
> 3) We might want to use "group" for the categorization of targets that is
> needed for the stage rule. For example:
> lib some-lib : source.cpp : <group>one ;
> lib another-lib : source2.cpp : <group>two ;
> stage release : : <group>two ;
> Don't hold me to that grammar ;-) It looks kinda of klunky, but using
> "group" for this make more sense to me than using it for grouping sources.
I'm almost convinced. The last problem is that "source" can be used
precisely in the same was as "alias" in Scons: to build a set of
target given a single name. I think "source" will be confusing then.
Anyway, we can make "alias" rule an alias for "source" rule :-)
Let's go with "source".
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