Re: [jamboost] Re: bjam --version

From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-28 17:11:33

At Thursday 2003-08-28 03:11, you wrote:
>Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:
>
> > >I need not look at any code to figure out how --version is handled. For
> > > the reasons I've explained in another email, it really could not made to
> > > work anywhere.
> >
> > got it... a misunderstanding of what --version means for this program.
> > every _other_ program I've used reports the version of the binary that is
> > executing (a useful thing, don't you think?). If there are many pieces
> > that need to be assembled in order to determine the version, I suggest that
> > itemizing each "version" of "build number" or "what have you" _as you find
> > them_ would be a good plan, then when you've found them all calculate
> > whatever the "official marketing" version number is.
>
>Alas, I don't understand what you propose. Do you mean that bjam, immediately
>on invocation, should check for --version and print its own version, and then
>build system should print it's own version later?

I hadn't realized that there was a -v option

I'd hazard a guess that "--" has some deeper meaning than "-" over in the 
*nix world, and those of us who don't use it don't "get it"

>- Volodya
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>ADVERTISEMENT
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>jamboost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the 
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"