Re: Project requirements too global

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-16 08:35:14

David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> Any comments or better ideas?
>
> If you can't do the above, IMO the only clean solution is to move the
> declaration of lib common out of that project.

Let me just clarify. Finding ways to selectively turn off global
project requirements sounds like a bad idea to me. Adding ways to
unsay what you just said for particular cases tends to complicate a
system. The likelihood is that you'll have to unsay it over and over,
as you add new static libraries, and if you forget the result is
(according to you) wasted build time and nonsensical semantics.

The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters

Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!

So, if there's a way for users to achieve the basic functionality
within the existing framework, by using the project structure, that is
probably the way to go.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com