Re: propagation of usage-requirements

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-17 08:57:33

Toon Knapen wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> 
> but I don't see why (with propagated usage-requirements) we have too 
> long command lines (due to unnecessary include paths). If you don't want 
> to propagate the include path (and thus you have a source-dependency, 
> not a header-dependency), then make the '<include>some_path' a 
> requirement instead of a usage-requirement.

If A depends upon B which depends upon C, only the author of B is
qualified to make a decision about whether C's <include>
usage-requirements should be applied to A.

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