Re: [jamboost] Re: link-compatibility poll: results and feature removal

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-22 07:20:21

Zbynek Winkler wrote:

> > feature mode : 1 2 3 4
> >
> > : link-incompatible ignored-unless-explicitly-made-relevant ;
> >
> > lib test : test.cpp : <explicitly-relevant-feature>mode
> >
> > : : <explicit-relevant-feature>mode ;
> >
> > exe app : app.cpp test ;
> >
> > With this setup, 'mode' feature will only affect target which have
> > explicitly specified that they care about 'mode'. What do you think?
> > (Note that this just an idea, syntax details might be different).
>
> So when I build 'app' - will it have mode set? 

Yes, since <explicitly-relevant-feature>mode is in usage requirements and will 
propagate to 'app'.

> (Note: for me to be of use
> it should and it should be the default value of the feature 'mode') When I
> issue 'bjam mode=1 app' I'd like 'app' to be built with mode set to 1 and
> linked with 'test/<mode>1'. In addition when I do 'bjam mode=1' it should
> build all targets but only 'test' and 'app' should have mode set. Is this
> what you are suggesting? If so, then it solves my problem ;-)

Seems like everything you're asking would work! Ok, need only find the time to 
think about details and implement this.

- Volodya