From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-13 08:43:16
David Abrahams wrote:
> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>David Abrahams wrote:
>>>Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>>I've just uploaded a couple of UML diagrams to
>>>>The first shows main classes,
>>>I understand that, and as you can see I've transcribed it into the
>>>relevant .jam files.
>>Thanks! I'm yet not on speaking terms with emacs picture-mode,
>>so hardly could do that. BTW, they look very nice!
> I've forgotten more than I once knew, so it was harder than it
> should've been ;-)
> Basically, you just do M-x "picture mode" C-h C-b and see what you've
> got to work with. I have a few additional rules I wrote for rectangle
> manipulation in my .emacs:
I've tried that. The biggest problem is that when I have to add a method,
this is very hard.
>>>>and the second is a sequence chart showing how a project with
>>>>simple main target, created by the "make" rule, might be generated.
>>>I don't understand that one. What are v1 and v2?
>>First, let's assume that jamfile contains:
>> make foo : bar : make-foo-from-bar ;
>>v1 and v2 are two instances of file-target class, v1 corresponds to
>>the "foo" file, and v2 --- to the "bar" file.
> More-descriptive names, e.g. "source" and "target", would've helped
>>The anonymous instance of make-target creates both v1 and v2, as
>>well as action "a". (The "create" message means that the recipient
>>of the message is created). Later, the action for generation of v1
>>is set, and v1 is returned as result of call to generate.
> What's the blob on the left which is the source of the first generate
I would have asked the scanner if it could talk. Just ignore it.
>>After that, v1 is actualized, as shown by the following messages.
> What is the self-referential loop on V1?
It means that after getting target path from action, v1 sets it's own
location. There's no "set-location" method, but I thought the actual
details (call to "LOCATE", etc) are not that relevant.
>>>>2. Is the quality OK? (There're scanned from hand-drawings).
>>>IMO the scan quality is OK, but the hand-drawings need to be cleaner
>>>if they're going to communicate well, which is why I converted them to
>>What should be improved, precisely. Looking at them now, I see that
>>text is probably less readable than it should. The arrows looks
>>good, however :-)
> It's usable, just messy. Messiness is distracting and interferes with
> understanding. Laying things out without overlapping elements
> (e.g. lines), where possible, also helps.
Hmm... the compromise between nice look (which UML editors give) and
convenient (it's very easy to use pencil) is hard to find. Problems
with adding a new method keeps me somewhat dissatisfied with picture
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