From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-03 11:47:32
Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Sunday 02 April 2006 04:42, David Abrahams wrote:
>> > After thinking on it for a few days that is certainly one viable route.
>> > Also the suggestion to use "build-requirements" for consistency is good.
>> > Perhaps that should be added as an alias for "requirements". With that
>> > in mind a few other possibilities spring to mind:
>> I think we should keep experimenting. For example:
>> lib foo : foo.cpp
>> self: # the default
>> all: # or maybe "self+users:"
> Using ":" as last character of word to indicate something looks pretty
> confusing to me, because now you have ":" used in two different ways in the
> same invocation of a rule. Using:
> lib foo : foo.cpp
> : self <define>COOL=1
> : all <define>ENABLE_LOG
> : users <link>shared:<define>BUILD_DLL=1
> loks more clear to me.
may be potentially confusing, but IMO it is not nearly as confusing as
by itself used as a label describing the list of things that comes
It would be nice if there was another character that didn't lead to
-- 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