Re: help building boost with V2

From: David Abrahams (gclbb-jamboost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-29 09:00:58

Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> My pet peeve, property-adjuster, is an example of something incurs a
>> great deal of complexity in the architecture for a very general
>> mechanism which is only used in one specific way and for a single test
>> case which it's not very clear should be supported. If similar
>> choices are made in enough places, it becomes very difficult to hold
>> the design of the system in one's head. What little understanding of
>> the architecture I am able to develop dissipates quickly. If you have
>> to crawl through lots of code just to put together a picture of what's
>> happening before you begin, it becomes a poor investment to try at
>> all.
>
> Yep, that serves as an illustration, but in this particular case, I have a 
> good conterargument. 

It's not really a counterargument at all, since I never claimed you
refused to have it changed (though it was rather a struggle to
convince you that it might be worthwhile).

> Some time ago I wrote the following on the subject of 
> property-adjuster 
> (in http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.build/3589/)
>
> Please feel free to remove this feature for now. It would be best if the 
> change is made with a single commit that touches nothing else, so that
> we can use the diff if/when this behaviour should be implemented again.
>
> So, the ball is on your side.

Of course it is, but this is "just a drop in the bucket", as they say.
I should probably do that, but right now I'm not using v2 for anything
and I think it would make only a small difference in the overall
picture.

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