From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-31 07:46:43
On Monday 31 July 2006 15:38, Roland Schwarz wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > Why do you think you need to specify it? Does <include> fails to work?
> To be honest, I didn't even try to use include in place of sysinclude.
> I thought they refer to different include paths, dont they?
That's the theory. But if I understand the practical situation right, very few
compilers actually have separate include paths, and how exactly that works is
up to each compiler. So it's a big question is adding portable-looking
feature that's not portable at all is a good idea.
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