From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-30 04:54:21
> I just started browsing through the v2 docs. I have to say that
> they're very nice and accessible so far. They give a very reassuring
> sense of security!
Glab to hear!
> When I saw the mention of <library> at
>c-tutorial I started to wonder why not <source> instead?
> If you can write:
> : requirements <library>/boost/filesystem//fs
> : requirements <source>foo.cpp
> and then why not
> : requirements <source>/boost/filesystem//fs
And then why not:
exe a : a.cpp <toolset>gcc:<source>a_gcc.cpp ;
? Seems like introducing <source> -- as a special feature which will be
converted to source when metataget (= main target) is built -- would be just
pure win. It would be a more generic than <library> and should do everything
In fact, at the moment <library> is handled by linking-generator.run by adding
them all to 'sources'.
If you could make attempt at creating <source> feature, it would be really
great. Of course, no pressure and no need to hurry :-)
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk