From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-10 20:02:26
Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> writes:
> I guess the C++ port would at least help with the type system as it
> would, hopefully, be easy to add those then.
If "those" means "types," I don't see how.
> So, I think the best way forward is to make Jam a thin description only
> language plus the build engine and add the ability to embed other more
> useful languages to do anything heavier. Basically what we have now,
> except we get rid of most of the usual "language" constructs like
> looping, branching, etc.
I wouldn't; at least I don't see that as a priority.
> and the rules call an embedded language instead of Jam. Perhaps
> something like:
> rule glob-tree ( root : patterns * ) python
> import os os.path
> for root, dirs, files in os.walk('$(root)'):
> # etc...
There's not really any need to redesign this, is there? bjam-Python
integration is already working AFAIK.
-- 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