RE: [jamboost] Re: Some fundamental misunderstandings (v2)

From: Mark Elston (m.elston_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-16 15:49:57

Right. Thanks.

I saw your email after I sent out this one.

I should have known anyway because of the '<' and '>' characters
just like you mentioned.

I assume the <variant>debug <variant>release syntax would work in a
Jamfile requirements section or rule?

Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: news [mailto:news_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of David Abrahams
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:25 PM
> To: jamboost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [jamboost] Re: Some fundamental misunderstandings (v2)
> 
> 
> "Mark Elston" <m.elston_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
> > Ah, I begin to see. I haven't seen the references to <variant>debug
> > or <toolset>gcc in the docs (are they there?).
> >
> > With that mechanism in place I see why things are the way they are.
> > There is nothing really *magic* happening. There are just some
> > shortcuts (saving keystrokes). If we were to write scripts to use
> > bjam and wanted to "fully" document the scripts we could modify
> > the command-line I gave below like this:
> >
> > bjam <variant>debug <variant>release <toolset>msvc 
> <toolset>gcc MyTarget
> 
> '<' and '>' don't work well on the command-line of most shells because
> they have another meaning. As I tried to tell you, the syntax for
> BBv2 on the command-line uses '=':
> 
> bjam variant=debug variant=release toolset=msvc toolset=gcc MyTarget
> 
> There's also a shortcut like this:
> 
> bjam variant=debug,release toolset=msvc,gcc MyTarget
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
> http://www.boost-consulting.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>