From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-19 01:42:06
On Tuesday 19 September 2006 00:09, David Abrahams wrote:
> >> Why not that, too?
> > Because I did not see obvious use case for that. And <threading>multi is
> > non-free so it can be passed via usage requirements anyway at the moment.
> ?? If it is non-free and can be passed via usage requirements, this
> exact capability would be useful.
Sorry, "can" should be "can't". Non-free features can't be passed via usage
> >> And what's a "parent?" do you mean a project higher up in the hierarchy?
> > For a target -- project where the target is defined. For a project --
> > project higher up.
> I can see why it's slightly less dangerous to limit the feature in
> that way, but I'm not sure it's worth the cost. We've long discussed
> the desire to say "despite usage requirements, I know better; this
> target doesn't have such-and-such requirement."
I just don't remember such discussions. If you can point me on them, I'll add
an issue to extend -<property> logic. Though it might be not as easy as the
change I've already done.
-- Vladimir Prus http://vladimir_prus.blogspot.com Boost.Build V2: http://boost.org/boost-build2
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