From: Jurko Gospodnetic (jurko_for_boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-26 07:34:49
>> - 'analysing' should be spelled 'analyzing'
> This depends on relative distance to U.K and U.S ;-) My spellchecker says
> "analyse" is correct british spelling.
Yup... seems so :-)
> What about this rewrite:
> There are two ways to control a tool using features. The
> first is to declare a "generic" feature, which value is passed to
> tool without modification. For example, the value of the
> <code>cxxflags</code> feature ends up in the compiler's command
> line. Such a generic feature allows the user to get full control
> should be always provided when you write a tool.
> <para>The second approach is to declare a more specific feature,
> which is directly translated to specific options. For example,
> the <code><optimization>speed</code> property might add
> <literal>-O3</literal> to the compiler's command line. Specific
> features are preferred over generic for a couple of reasons:
Seems passable... - can't see any syntax errors and can now
finally understand the point of the text :-)) ... I guess further sylistic
changes will and should be done to the whole documentation once
all the content is in...
One thing I might not be happy with is the 'generic'/'more specific'
terminology but can not think of a better solution at the moment.
Actually, don't both those features 'send their values' and it's actually
the tool's duty to interpret them? So the difference is not in how they
are used by a tool and not in the features themselves. But I am just
guessing here... did not take the time to look at the sources.
>> - 'Let's see' should read 'Lets see'
> Isn't "Let's" an abbreviation of "Let us"?
Erm... yup... now for the life of me I can not remember what I
was thinking when I wrote that... :-))) sorry...
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