Re: Clean up project-root.jam?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-19 17:23:13

Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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?

I like Jamroot.

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