Re: [jamboost] Re: Some thoughts on targets

From: Ali Azarbayejani (ali_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-09 09:59:56

David Abrahams wrote:
>>>I can't
>>>come up with any strong arguments about this. One other idea might be
>>>to use "//", but it's just an idea.
>>
>>Comparing
>>
>> /boost/program_options%program_options
>>
>>with 
>>
>> /boost/program_options//program_options
>>
>>I cannot say that I prefer anything strongly. Maybe, we should toss a coin ;-)
> 
> 
> I guess I like the double-slash thing a little better because it
> sticks out a little more and still looks like path separation. We'd
> need to be careful to handle the initial // on remote paths for some
> OSes specially.
> 
> /boost/program_options$program_options
> 
> is probably a mistake because of the special role of '$' in Jam

I don't know why you and Volodya want to make it look like a path 
separation...that's precisely what I'd like to avoid. I would like the 
separator to visually separate the two things as much as possible while 
still connecting them. They really are two different things..."project" 
and "main-target"...and I'd like them to look clearly separated.

So, personally, I prefer round symbols like '@' and '$' to linear 
symbols like '/', '//', '\' or '%' (although the '%' is actually more 
round than linear to my eyes, so, ironically, Volodya and I both like 
'%' but for exactly opposite reasons).

But what I don't get is why is it appealing to you to make the 
main-target somehow look like a sub-path?

--Ali