Boost logo

Boost-Build :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-16 20:17:52

Vladimir Prus wrote:
> On Thursday 16 December 2004 18:52, David Abrahams wrote:
>> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> There ought to be a way to say "these are propagated only to direct
>> dependents." In fact, I think that maybe ought to be the normal case.
> I think it's a conflict between "explicit" and "convenient". No matter what
> guidelines are there ("explicit is better than implicit", for example), I
> often find that decision is not easy. In this case, Toon did not like too
> explicit behaviour.

If there were a way to say "these are propagated to indirect dependents,
but these others are only propagated to direct dependents," you have the
best of both worlds.

> I think if extra paths will cause problems only for
> debugging, it's not a big deal.

It's not just about debugging, it's about user experience. The
extra-long and complicated command-lines currently generated by BB don't
leave people with warm fuzzies. Consider the effort already expended
just to get the duplicated library mentions out of the command line.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at