Re: Header scanning change

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-20 10:03:28

Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> Obviously this breaks backwards compatibility so isn't something you'd want
>> to do in the mainline Boost Jam. Alternatives I thought of would be adding
>> a BOUND_NAME builtin or a variable modifier (e.g. $(source:Z),
>> unfortunately B is taken) which would return nothing before a target is
>> bound.
>
> This approach did not occured to me. Since header rule is called one for each 
> scanned target, I think it's possible to pass binding to it. We'd only have 
> to change prototypes of some rules, and it will be sufficient.
>
> I'm not sure if it's necessary right now, but the change seems attractive.

I'd like to discourage any change which hardcodes the way search paths
are handled. I can't tell if that's happening here, so please ignore
me if it's not.

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