Re: [jamboost] Re: Killing 'build-project'

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-11 08:20:27

On Monday 11 April 2005 13:48, David Abrahams wrote:
> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > Hello,
> > currently, a Jamfile can request that another project be build with
> >
> > build-project path-to-some-other-project ;
> >
> > however, the same effect can be obtained with
> >
> > alias other : path-to-some-other-project ;
> >
> > The second syntax also allows to use project id (and not only project
> > directory, see http://zigzag.cs.msu.su:7814/scarab/issues/id/BB37).
> >
> > What if we declare 'build-project' deprecated and eventually remove it?
>
> I don't know. It's really nice that alias can be used to accomplish
> so many things, but the usage above is just a little too obtuse. 

Because of the need to make up an extra name? Or because the connection 
between the name 'alias' and the effect might not be so obvious?

> I'm 
> all for reimplementing build-project in terms of alias, but maybe we
> should preserve the expressive way of "saying what you mean" at the
> interface level. 

OTOH, if we use alias for that, user don't have to learn yet another new 
syntax. You can write:

alias other : some_dir/<variant>release ;

or 

alias other : some_dir : <toolset>gcc:<variant>release ;

And 'build-project' can't do anything of the above, so user have to remember 
the limitations.

And if 'build-project' is reimplemented in terms of 'alias', then it probably 
should be named just 'build', because it can build not only projects but also 
regular targets.

- Volodya

-- 
Vladimir Prus
http://vladimir_prus.blogspot.com
Boost.Build V2: http://boost.org/boost-build2