From: fs_kazike (fs_kazike_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-27 15:03:25
--- In jamboost_at_[hidden], Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_c...> wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 July 2005 17:56, fs_kazike wrote:
> > I was very surprised that the return did not exit the rule and
> > continued.
> > Is this behavior intended or a bug ?
> That was the behavior of Perforce Jam by the time Boost.Jam was
> Perforce fixed that "feature" since then, but the change was never
> Boost.Jam. Primarily for lack of time.
Thank you for the fast answer.
I've found it in the changelog of Perforce:
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