From: Larry Evans (cppljevans_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-20 14:24:36
On 09/20/2005 01:54 PM, David Abrahams wrote:
> Larry Evans <cppljevans_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>The following would be clearer to me:
>> If a target, X, is needed by another target, Y, then Y is termed
>> a dependent of X and, conversely, X is termed a dependency of Y.
> I appreciate your input very much, so I hope you will take my response
> in that context...
> I understand how the use of X and Y help, but the phrasing seems
> needlessly wordy. Also the whole business of mathematical notation
> seems pedantic and not helpful. The first sentence ought to be able
Yes, good point. It just seemed more helpful to me I guess because
I'm used to thinking in those terms, and a word description is
often, at least to me, harder to understand than a math description,
in simple cases.
> to do the job on its own. How about, simply,
> When a target X is needed in order to build target Y, X is called a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Agreed, an improvement.
> dependency of Y and Y is called a dependent of X.
Well, the reason I used "conversely" is to emphasize the terms referred
to inverse relations. Of course I guess it would be obvious to the
I summary, you're rewording is an improvement.
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