Re: Relevant properties

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-09 17:34:33

Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> > 1. The build directory is still used, in my proposal. That is, targets
>> > are placed in "bin", not in ".".
>>
>> That's why it says "subdirectory"
>
> Ok.
>
>> > 2. How do we specify that we want some specific property in path. E.g.
>> >
>> > exe foo : foo.cpp : <relevant-feature>doc-format ;
>>
>> <build-subdirectory>doc-format
>>
>> > The <build-subdirectory> does not sound good in that context.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> Just because it feels that there's one 'build-subdirectory', so something with 
> several elements
>
> <build-subdirectory>doc-format <build-subdirectory>foo
>
> looks strange to me

Okay.

>> I'm warming to relevant-feature a bit, but it's still obtuse. 
>
> Well, it has the smell of implementation detail :-(
>
>> I know I came up with the term, but I never expected it to be in a
>> prominent place in the system's UI.
>
> Seems we need something in UI... maybe <represent-feature> or
> <track-feature>, or <show-feature-value> or <encode-feature-value>
> or <show-in-target-path>?

I think <in-target-path> might be enough. It's still a little
strange though. The way this property works, as I understand it, is
that if you don't specify anything, all features are in-target-path.
As soon as you specify one feature as in-target-path, you get _only_
that feature in the target path. Is that right?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com