From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-20 20:25:14
Reece Dunn <msclrhd_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> This causes 'bla-blah' to be written to a temporary file, and the action will
>> contain @<name-of-the-file>
> I *really* like this syntax :).
> I have the original Jam and Matt's Jam sources from Perforce
> (public.perforce.com Perforce connection) and am going to start
> looking at merging the changes into BJam.
>> I recall we had a long discussion about relative merits of those approaches,
>> and did not decide anything. There are some usability questions, like
>> removing or not removing files when build succeeds, or when it fails.
> We can get an implementation up and running, then modify it to best suit
> our needs. Having a "native" solution would be a lot better than the
> BBv2 implementation we currently have.
That just leads me to ask what's missing from the bjam core that we
can't implement the same behavior without resorting to extending bjam
specifically for response files?
> Q: What will happen when we port over to BBpy?
In the near term, we'll keep the same build engine, so nothing much
will happen. In the long term, we might use Scons' build engine, but
that's just Python. We can extend it (if necessary) to do anything we
like. However, I'd like to answer the question I posed above before
thinking of making that extension. Response files don't seem like
such a special case that they should require their own build engine
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
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