Re: [jamboost] Re: bjam --version

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-28 17:37:02

[2003-08-28] Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:

>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

Loo at:

http://www.boost.org/tools/build/jam_src/Jam.html
Jam/MR - Make(1) Redux

For even more "-" optoins ;-)

>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"

Not much of a meaning... "-" is old style Unix, "--" is new style GNU.

Jam only really understands the old style "-". The "--" is actually the "-"
option, as "v" is the version option in "-h". Sneaky isn't it ;-)

-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera (at) acm.org - grafik (at) redshift-software.com
-- 102708583 (at) icq