From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-10 00:45:35
David Abrahams wrote:
> Ali Azarbayejani <ali_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > 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.
> It's an instinctive thing for me. Once you know Jam syntax, you tend
> to think of any group of consecutive characters as an identifier, and
> it takes more than an arbitrary funny symbol to break them up. That's
> all; no big deal, and I can adjust to another syntax.
In fact, IIRC, Ali said that any syntax is ok, as long as it's not "/". So
this is a discussion where nobody has strong preferences or strong arguments.
Just got to decide.
> > 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.
And I don't. Main target is different thing from a file.... but as far as user
concerned, both are valid sources, so they should not look like completely
different thing. For example,
foo/bar/a.cpp refer to a file
foo/bar//a.cpp refer to a main target
look different, but similiar.
> > 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?
> It's just a stronger mental indication to parse the sections as
> separate items.
Ok, last attempt at logically evaluating syntaxes:
$ --- no-starter, since it looks like variable
% --- now I've looked again, and it's bad too. Those circles
make is visually indistiguishable from the letters around
@ --- just don't like it. I always read this symbol as "at", and this
makes no sense here.
// --- I like it. Further, as I've said already, it will be easier to
migrate to new syntax if it does not use "@".
Unless some really good argument is made, I'll document and implement the new
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