From: David Abrahams (gclbb-jamboost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-08 10:25:29
Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> >> plus it would have drawn path.jam into the kernel,
>> > Not sure code duplication is better.
>> It's not duplication. My normalize-raw-paths is smaller, cleaner,
>> easier to understand, and better-documented ;-)
> Good statement! Whether it's smaller/cleaner/easier/whatever is
> orthogonal question. There's two pieces of code which do the same
> thing, and that's code duplication, by definition.
Not by my definition. My definition of code duplication is code
which is syntactically substantially identical. This is duplication
of functionality, which is definitely also an evil, but perhaps a
What about replacing the complicated implementation in path.jam with
something based on normalize-raw-paths?
> Besides, the email you've responded to questioned the need to call
> 'normalize-raw-paths' at all. Do you have any comments on this?
I put it in there because I wanted to be able to move modules from
"tools/new" to tools/xxx as follows:
1. Copy the file to tools/xxx
2. Modify the version in tools/new to generate an error when
executed, to be sure it isn't getting used.
3. Run all the tests.
The problem in that case is that other modules still in tools/new
would always pick up the wrong version without even trying.
It could be seen, I suppose, as a transitional measure.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
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