From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-11 02:20:46
David Abrahams wrote:
> >> 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?
That's right, because it's more convenient to specify features that you want,
than features you don't want (which are unlimited).
It's possible to use
<hide-features>yes <show-feature>a <show-feature>b
but it differs only by extra element. Don't think it improves anything.
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