Re: Performance & import

From: David Abrahams (gclbb-jamboost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-09 09:19:33

Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> We probably ought to transition to an explicit specification of
>> subdirectory on imports pretty soon anyway.
>
> That's up to you. I've moved some stuff to "tools" but left
> "util"/"core" separation to you and Ali.

OK. The big question that comes along is, when I write:

import foo/bar ;

do the rules show up qualified, e.g.:

foo.bar.baz a1 : a2 ;

or unqualified as they do now:

bar.baz a1 : a2 ;

??

My inclination is to allow syntaxes for both results, and to do the
latter by default, if only to limit the scope of changes to source.
Perhaps:

import foo/bar ; # bring in rules as bar.baz, etc.

import foo.bar ; # bring in rules as foo.bar.baz, etc.

??

> But anyway: we've got to allow plain imports without directory in
> 'project-root.jam' so adding binding of including module to search
> paths will still be needed. 

Sure.

> But 'normalize-raw-path' won't be needed in that case.

Right.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com