From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-13 06:36:09
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 15:15, David Abrahams wrote:
> >> 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.
> ?? It's not new syntax; it's just an ordinary rule invocation.
Let me try to clarify. Docs says that all main target rule have a specific
sets of parameters and most likely know them. Now, "build-project" allows to
build a project, but it does not allow to build it with specific properties,
and it does not allow to specify project using project id. Those limitations
might confuse the user.
> > 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.
> Well, I have no idea what those two things mean, so I'm just as lost
> as any user would be.
The first builds project in "some_dir" in release variant. The second uses
conditional requirements to build it in release variant on gcc only.
> And I have to ask why build-project wouldn't be
> able to do that, if it were just a simple wrapper over alias.
Then, the only difference between 'build-project' and 'alias' for user would
be that for 'build-project' you don't have to specify any target name? Well,
maybe that's reasonable.
-- Vladimir Prus http://vladimir_prus.blogspot.com Boost.Build V2: http://boost.org/boost-build2
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