Re: [jamboost] Alternatives and underfined feature values

From: Pedro Ferreira (pedro.ferreira_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-04 11:13:19

Em 4/fev/2005, às 07:21, Jürgen Hunold escreveu:

>
> 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.

In principle, I agree but how does one implement it? Hardcoding a list 
of supported OSs and toolsets?
Looks a bit awkward... but I think it's better than the other approches.

Pedro