Re: Spec draft

From: David Abrahams (gclbb-jamboost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-18 08:46:12

Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> > 1. The word "specification" starts to resonate for me, and it's sounds
>> > better than 'abstract-target'. So, the 'abstract-target' can become
>> > 'target-spec', and the 'generate' rule will remain basically as is.
>>
>> My only reservation about target-spec is that it doesn't resonate for
>> the user in some cases. What does it mean to include a target-spec
>> in your sources? Well, we could rephrasee as "include the id of a
>> target-spec in your sources", which makes more sense. Anyway, this
>> is why I was suggesting MetaTarget before, though please note I am
>> not at all convinced it would be an improvement.
>
> My reservation about MetaTarget is that I don't know how to call project-spec 
> and file-spec if main-target-spec is renamed to MetaTarget.

Project and File?

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