From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-19 10:00:47
Toon Knapen wrote:
>> It would be desirable to have only one kind of file, with single set of
>> allowed rules.
> I definitly agree !
Ok. FWIW, I decided that since nobody posted "over my dead body" replies
this suggestions is not that bad, so it's already committed (reducing the
code size by 8K, btw ;-) ).
>> It's quite possible to use project-root.jam just as different name of
>> Jamfile. When trying to load project, we look both for Jamfile and for
>> project-root.jam. If we found Jamfile, we first lookup/load parent
>> project and then load Jamfile. If we found project-root.jam, we just load
>> it, without looking up the parent. The loading process for Jamfile and
>> project-root.jam will be exactly the same, and the set of rule which can
>> be used in Jamfile and project-root.jam will be the same.
>> For backward compatibility, if a directory contains both project-root.jam
>> and Jamfile, we'll load both.
> May I propose soth different: I suggest to have a file 'Jamroot' (or
> Jamrootfile or soth.) in the root-directory and 'Jamfile' everywher
> else. Starting all bjam related files with the prefix 'Jam' might
> confuse people less. And for backward compat. we could say: or you have
> Jamrootfile or a project-root.jam and Jamfile.
The arguments about "Jam" prefix is definitely a valid one. It would have to
relearn this convention, but new users might benefit. Anybody else care to
comment on this UI issue? Should we use Jamroot or project-root.jam?
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