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

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.

- Volodya

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