From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-16 22:50:29
Toon Knapen wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> 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.
> AFAICT it's not about 'implicit' or 'explicit'. Generally I'm also for
> But suppose library C uses library B which on its turn uses library A. I
> don't think the developer of library C (and thus which uses library B)
> should know that library B relies on library A. It's the developer of
> library B that states in his jamfile that B is dependent on A. C only
> uses B. Even more: Suppose library C is not changed but all of a sudden
> library B decides to add some dependency to libZ. This should certainly
> not induce a change to the build-specification (==Jamfile) of library C,
> only to the build-specification of library B.
Of course I agree with everything you have said. I am only arguing that
the author of B should be able to be explicit about which of A's
usage-requirements are propogated on to B's clients.
-- 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