Re: [jamboost] Adding QT support to Boost Build V2

From: Felix E. Klee (felix.klee.jamboost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-17 09:43:39

On Friday 17 January 2003 03:17 pm, Jürgen Hunold wrote:
> > If moc'ing can be turned on and off with some kind of "moc" switch
> > then a solution where ".h" files are specified as source files is
> > actually OK with me. But I recommend renaming ".h" to ".hpp" (that's
> > more Boost compliant) or, even better, letting the user specify the
> > extensions with a subfeature. Maybe that approach can be extended
> > into a general approach for supporting files that can be processed
> > but don't need to. Another example besides moc would be extracting
> > documentation from C++ source and header files using tools like
> > Doxygen. What do others think?
>
> Well. As stated above, each "special" extension causes much work with
> existing projects. 

I have the impression that you misread my answer. I simply recommended to 
replace ".h" with ".hpp" (not ".qpp") which is the boost standard extension 
for header files. Letting the user specify the extension (or extensions) for 
files to be moc'ed would even be more flexible. Then you could continue using 
".h" extensions for your header files and I can continue using ".hpp" 
extensions.

> For me, this is just inacceptable.
> I'm using Thomas' jamrules for my experiment with v1 and it works very
> good.
> And we're using doxygen to generate docs out of _every_ header.

Did you again misread my original text or are there indeed features in Jam 
that support Doxygen? If so, where can I find more documentation?

Felix

-- 
To contact me personally don't reply but send email to 
felix DOT klee AT inka DOT de