Re: link-compatibility poll: results and feature removal

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-23 00:39:19

Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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'.

Yikes, that's long!

What's wrong with

<relevant-feature>mode

??

And how is ignored-unless-explicitly-made-relevant different from the
default? If it isn't, it should be removed. If it is, we should
find a shorter name. IMO.

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