Boost logo

Boost-Build :

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-21 00:53:05

David Abrahams wrote:
> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > As they say in XP, "you aren't gonna need it".
> >
> I disagree that this is YAGNI. Ali made some very convincing
> arguments to me for cases which come up in his real projects.

I'm pretty sure those arguments were never communicated to me, so it's YAGNI
from my POV <wink>

> > Nobody said that this limination will have any effect on existing
> > projects. Further, now, how non-free features behave in conditional
> > requirements is not specified and is quite confusing.
> I cannot comprehend why it should be any more confusing to set
> non-free features conditionally than it is to set free features
> conditionally.

Because if you say that
1. Condition (part to the left of ":") is always composed of bese (non-free
and non-incidental)
2. The property (part to the left of ":") is always free/incidental

Then evaluation of any given conditioanl property can never have any effect on
other conditional property. They all are completely independent.

> I think if conditional requirements and use-requirements that are
> propagated do not combine intelligently with other conditional
> requirements it's going to be even more confusing.
> > We either have to fix this (which would take time), or impose the
> > limitation. We can always lift it later.
> Sure, that's always a good policy.


- Volodya


Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at