Re: bbv2 updated path.jam

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-26 07:37:15

Johan Nilsson wrote:

>> > I haven't put in any effort w.r.t. efficiency, but at least the tests
> pass.
>> > Comments are welcome.
>>
>> Your changes look very good. Even though I don't know anything about VMS
>> I can't understand what's going on by looking at comment and the number
>> of tests you've added is also impressive.
> 
> Thanks. I hope you mean "can understand", though ;-)

Yea. I'm an expert typo-maker ;-)

>> I've committed your modifications.
>>
>> > Consider this only a first step in VMS support for
>> > bbv2.
>>
>> I suppose getting compilers working is another step? Do you think we can
> add
>> "support for VMS paths" to developer-visible changes list for M10? Since
> the
>> change is completely safe for other platforms, I've included it already.
> 
> That should be ok, even though it's not really usable yet.

Well, path.jam *is* usable, right?

>> > begin 666 path.jam
>> > M(R @0V]P>7)I9VAT("A#*2!6;&%D:6UI<B!0<G5S(#(P,#(N(%!E<FUI<W-I
>>
>> If it's not very problematic for you, could you avoid using uuencoded
> files,
>> and use attachments, as described in
>> http://boost.org/boost-build2/hacking.txt
>> My mailer does not handle uuencode well.
> 
> I wasn't aware I was uuencoding ... does the attachment look better this
> time?

Yes, thanks!

- Volodya