Re: [jamboost] Alternatives and underfined feature values

From: Jürgen Hunold (hunold_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-04 02:21:13

Hi !

On Thursday 03 February 2005 23:31, Zbynek Winkler wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
> >1. Do not validate features here at all.

Would be great..

> >2. Introduce special syntax for properties used for alternative

> >and don't validate features specified in "when" clause. This is
> > related to http://zigzag.cs.msu.su:7814/scarab/issues/id/BB78,
> > which says we need explicit control over what features are used for
> > alternative selection. 

No. This would break *lots* of Jamfiles. 

> > 3. Allow the user to say that <toolset>msvc 
> > is valid, without initializing the toolset.

> I like #3. It seems to be the cleanest of your proposals. In fact I
> think that all toolsets shiped with BB2 should be valid by default.

This would be great. But I dont think that *automagically* scanning all 
toolsets would be a great idea.

> The same goes for the <os> feature that has the same problem.

I'm +1 for an explicit list of "configured" values for <toolset> and 
<os>. So bjam can check for syntax errors.

Yours,

Jürgen

-- 
* Dipl.-Math. Jürgen Hunold ! Institut für Verkehrswesen, Eisenbahnbau
* voice: ++49 511 762-2529 ! und -betrieb, Universität Hannover  
* fax : ++49 511 762-3001 ! Appelstrasse 9a, D-30167 Hannover
* hunold_at_[hidden] ! www.ive.uni-hannover.de