From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-07 02:56:03
David Abrahams wrote:
> Modified Files:
> Log Message:
> Improved commenting, naming, formatting. Began refactoring.
I've a problem with this log message. Suppose you look at it a month ago. Can
you glean anything --- what was refactored, how, why? I think no, so this
message is as good as no message. Also, to understand what changed I need to
browse the entire diff, which includes not so interesting comment/naming
Could we agree to use a bit more verbose log messages. For example, if message
for this commit read:
* new/generators.jam: Improved commenting, naming, formatting
(generator.match-rank): Count also requirements when determining the rank,
not only optional properties.
(generator.run): Always set 'multiple' to true.
I would immediately understand the important changes.
> - return [ sequence.length [ set.intersection
> - [ optional-properties ] : $(properties) ] ] ;
> + # We're only used to rank matches based on the number of
> + # optional properties that appear in the property set.
> + # That seemed a little weak to me, so I changed it: now we
> + # account for the number of properties and features that
> + # were matched as well. -- dwa 5/6/2003
I'm pretty sure the current behaviour was prompted by some real use case from
my work usage of V2. Once I'm able to update from CVS, I'll try to find if
your changes break that usage.
> + multiple = true ; # The tests seem to tolerate this; will
> + # remove the parameter altogether in the
> + # next revision to see what I learn -- DWA
I actually wonder if this means "multiple" is unneeded, or that simply we
don't have tests for that. The last paragraph of 'generators.jam' comment
still makes sense to me --- but I don't have real examples to present.
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