From: Pedro Ferreira (pedro.ferreira_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-27 12:39:55
Em 27 Jan 2005, às 14:01, David Abrahams escreveu:
> Well, consider that what we're discussing are really global
> *constants*. It's data that is initialized once and then never
> touched again. Global constants don't present the same kinds of
> problems as global variables do.
Ok, I'm convinced.
Proposal: make everything global, except targets and all artifacts
generated for a build.
I'll try and make some modules' state "resettable" so we can test them
Anyone sees a problem? Volodya, you seemed to be in line with my
>>>> Then Tools/Types/Cpp.py would be:
>>> Please, can we have all_lowercase module names?!
>> Sure, but that definitely is religious :-) What about class names and
>> file names?
> File names must be all_lower_case as well, to avoid SNAFUS across
> platforms. And of course in Python filenames and module names
>> Sure it sould be simpler to do
>> types.type ('CPP', ['cpp', 'cxx', 'cc'])
>> but I'm ready to trade neatness for security. Still, I agree with you
>> that globals for types, features and similar are not showstoppers (bar
>> the testability) but I feel uncomfortable about that. What do you
> I think the anti-globals brush you are painting with is
> well-intentioned but much too broad.
>>> BTW, I know this is probably a religious issue, but space separating
>>> function names from argument lists makes them hard to read because
>>> can't visually "grep for [a-z](" to find all calls.
>> It is religious but I don't have a problem with that. I'll try. BTW,
>> what's the general feeling about that?
> I know that some significant fraction of people do it your way. But
> what can I say? They're just wrong ;-)
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