Re: [jamboost] Re: link-runtime -> runtime-link

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.
>
> Thanks!
>
> 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.

- Volodya

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