Boost logo

Boost-Build :

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-16 08:19:05

David Abrahams wrote:

> > Some followups are in
> >
> >
> > "//" is the separator between project-id and target-id.
> Oh. We never discussed using that notation, which may explain my
> confusion. Well, it's minimal and complete, but:
> 1. I am concerned that on some systems // is used to write remote
> paths.

I believe "//" has special meaning only at the beginning of remote path?

> 2. People read paths left-to-right. I thought it was helpful to
> have an @ at the beginning to say "this is a project path".

I think we've discussed this with Ali: he though "@" is unncecessary. In the
end, I agreed to remove it, since we can always add it back if users start to

> 3. It seems to me that using "//" for the usual case is syntactic
> overkill. Should it be reserved for the case where you are
> specifying a multi-component path w.r.t. a project, i.e.
> some/project//path/to/file
> but
> some/project/target

This might be possible. But actually, I don't have much problems with the
current syntax, so can't tell if the change is necessary.

> > In fact, I almost regret that I agreed to change target-id syntax
> > based on subjective judgements. Apparently, what was confusing for
> > Ali was ok for you, and now you're confused about target-ids.
> In fairness, we never discussed the // notation; I'm not sure it was
> OK for Ali.

He said anything but "/" is okay. But the problem I have is not that we've
arrived to a confusing syntax. The previous syntax was okay for you, and no
other user has complaints. The change caused lot of discussion previously
and causing some discussion now, not to mention some coding. Maybe, it was
better to just keep the old syntax.

After all, we don't have any tests for main-target names with slashes, which
amount to having no such feature.

- Volodya


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