From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-27 03:22:13
On Saturday 21 January 2006 01:47, David Abrahams wrote:
> > Currently
> > lib a ;
> > is interpreted as searched library named "a", that is you'll get -liba in
> > command line on linux, and a.lib on Windows. So your proposal conflicts
> > with the current semantics (proposed by you, as well). Using presense or
> > absense of usage-requirements in "lib" to determine if that's header-only
> > library or not does not seem reliable to me.
> Why not? To me it seems reliable and only slightly obtuse.
: # no sources
: # no requirements
: # no default build
: <include>whatever ;
Is this a header-only library? Or a searched library with extra usage
> Some other possibilities:
> lib a : : prebuilt ;
> lib a : : system ;
> lib a : : search ; # I like this one
> lib b : : header-only ; # And this one
This overloads the third argument of "lib" -- elsewhere, it means requiements.
> prebuilt-lib a ;
> header-only-lib b;
I like this one. I'm not sure we need 'prebuilt-lib' as we current have a way
to express that, but 'header-only-lib' can be a more readable alternative to
Would you like to add this rule to builtin.jam?
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