Re: [jamboost] Re: "using" -> "configure"?

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-25 09:35:55

On Wednesday 25 May 2005 18:15, David Abrahams wrote:
> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > On Wednesday 25 May 2005 17:47, David Abrahams wrote:
> >> Is there a good reason we're not using
> >>
> >> toolset.configure gcc ;
> >>
> >> instead of
> >>
> >> toolset.using gcc ;
> >>
> >> ??
> >>
> >> I know it's got more characters, but "configure" is much more natural
> >> for this English speaker (especially for this C++ programmer to whom
> >> "using" already means something completely different ;->)
> >
> > Well, the primary reason is the same english speaker originally
> > proposed "using".
>
> I don't believe it. I've never liked "using!" Is my memory really
> that bad?

Maybe my memory creates things that never existed ;-) I do remember, though,
that 'using' was present in the very first V2 proposals that you wrote.

>
> > I don't think advantages of "configure" over "using" justify making
> > the change and breaking user-config.jam for all existing users.
>
> Oh, *that's* easy; you provide a backward-compatibility forwarding
> rule.

That's true.
I won't even try to form any opinion on UI matters -- can some
users step forward and comment if the rename is desirable.

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