From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-10 04:16:57
David Abrahams wrote:
> 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.
> import foo/bar ; # bring in rules as bar.baz, etc.
> import foo.bar ; # bring in rules as foo.bar.baz, etc.
I mostly agree to you. I really don't want to write "utils.path.parent" all
over the place, so the latter syntax should be default. Also, I don't think
we should compicate the matters now and allow another syntax. Why don't we
try the latter syntax only for some time.
BTW, what's the motivation for
import uitls/path ;
style, as opposed to
import path ;
Better indication of what layer we're using? I'm thinking that if string
layering is to be enforced, we can allow
import path ;
but check that it does not grab module from "wrong" level.
> > 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.
And the same for toolsets:
using gcc ;
must remain the same.
> > But 'normalize-raw-path' won't be needed in that case.
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