From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-14 00:42:40
Ali Azarbayejani wrote:
> > Just a naming issue: "core" sounds like "the most important part" for me.
> > In fact, it's just a set of utilities. But I may be wrong with english.
> > > The "core" layer is a library of bootstrap and core "BBv2 language"
> > > constructs and utilities.
> > Yes, you give different meaning to "core".
> Core means the "center" or "innermost part", like an apple core, like
> a seed, or "kernel". It is the part from which the rest of the fruit
> grows. So it's only the "most important part" by virtue of everything
> else depending upon it. You can't have anything else in the BBv2 system
> without "module" and "class" etc. I think "core" is entirely
> for the low-level concepts because it is the part from which the rest of
> the system grows and the part that everything else depends upon.
> Other appropriate English terms for that layer would be "substrate",
> "foundation", "root", "seed", "kernel" but these are long names or
> have other common overloaded meanings in programming.
> Main Entry: 1core
> 1 : a central and often foundational part usually distinct
> from the enveloping part by a difference in nature <core
> of the city>
> 2 a : a basic, essential, or enduring part (as of an
> individual, a class, or an entity) <the staff had a core of
> experts> <the core of her beliefs> b : the essential
> meaning : GIST <the core of the argument> c : the inmost
> or most intimate part <honest to the core>
OK, let it be called "core".
> > I hope you don't mean a layer can't use modules from the same layer? It's
> > not clear from the above.
> You're right, and I have to be careful with terminology because
> normally individual "modules" within a "layer" may NOT use each other.
> Technically, each of these three layers contains a single conceptual
> module that contains all the files listed. Within each conceptual
> module there is further modularity and layering among the files and
> modules associated therewith.
This approach is OK. I was asking because some of packages in my diargam would
go in single layer and there are dependencies inside layer, as the result.
> The relationships of files and BB "modules" inside of these top-level
> conceptual modules is yet to be fully determined.
> > They are not complimentaty!
> > [ feature.split [ property.as-path $(p) ] ] != $(p)
> > "as-path" produces as compact representation of property set as possible.
> > For example, if you have "debug" and "<optimization>off" in property set,
> > then only "debug" will show up in "path", because it already contains the
> > second property. This means that if you decide to rename 'as-path' you
> > must be carefull about the name.
> Sorry, I missed that. You're right they are not complimentary, but
> even more reason to re-name...should be something like
I'm not about to argue about exact name, but would like the name to indicate
that conversion is being done, not that some existing attribute as retrieved.
E.g. "property.as-minimized-path" to "property.to-minimized-path" are better,
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