From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-16 00:36:09
On Wednesday 15 June 2005 21:24, David Abrahams wrote:
> >> > is the right spelling. Do you have a link to the doc which has the
> >> > wrong one?
> >> This is a gratuitous change from v1 that needlessly makes things
> >> difficult for existing users in the transition.
> > I now agree with you, and renamed the feature back to "runtime-link"
> > for V2. Hope this won't be too disturbing change for existing V2
> > users.
> I think you have to agree, also, that it's a good thing that there was
> some property validation in this case!
For properties specified on the command line -- yes, definitely.
For requirements -- yes, it's desired too. Unfortunately, we might need to
drop checking for requiremenets for now to avoid other problems. I agree with
what you said in the other email:
Maybe we just need to do validation much less often and in only a
few specific places, like the flags rule. That way, no validation
becomes the default and we start thinking about places where we want
to put it in.
-- 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