Re: [jamboost] Re: runtime-link

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-05 13:39:43

Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:

>>>2. Explicitly specify <static> when referring to those libraries:
>>>
>>> lib a : a.cpp cool_lib/<shared>false : <shared>true ;
>> 
>> 
>> OK, I like it. Though I worry about how this applies to the runtime
>> library, which is usually not explicitly named.
>
> I worry about it too. This runtime link issue is *very* complicated.

lib a : a.cpp cool_lib/<shared>false : <shared>true <runtime-link>static ;

>>>The third approach saves typing. 
>> 
>> 
>> How? It seems to have the most characters.
>
> If there are 10 libraries, it would have fewer characters than (2).

OK.

> The problem is that computing values of features from values of some
> other features is completely new concept. I'd rather avoid it
> if we can.
>
>> 
>> 
>>>That would be rather tricky,
>> 
>> 
>> Do you mean "tricky to implement in Boost.Build"?
>
> That, and that's such semantic is tricky for user to understand.

OK.

>>>and I don't know what it gives us.
>> 
>> 
>> I don't know what you mean.
>
> I don't see any advantages over <shared> only scheme. Is there
> anything you can't do with <shared>?

I think I'm now settled on composite features, so all problems are
smoothly resolved in my mind ;-)

> OK, let me know what you think of what I say above.

I think we may have a solution now. Anything missing?

-- 
David Abrahams
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution