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 http://www.boost-consulting.com
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