Re: [Boost-build] [bbv2 test] explicit test-suite ?

From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-06 01:25:38

Eric Niebler wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> On Thursday 05 October 2006 21:05, Eric Niebler wrote:
>>> Rene Rivera wrote:

> This system seems to require that rule authors conform to some arbitrary 
> convention in order for <dependency> to work. Is that really true?

At the UI level yes. Below that the target generation and handling is 
abstracted in classes which the UI code calls on. So it's possible for 
some UI code to ignore the standard nomenclature and prevent one from 
specifying requirements.

>> What would you suggest to do with <dependency>?
> 
> I think I'm saying that I'd like targets and dependencies to have 
> explicit syntax. I don't have a concrete suggestion, though. Part of 
> this is airing pent up frustration, part is just sharing my experiences, 
> which may or may not be representative of people new to bjam, and part 
> of it is an exploration of the design issues of a domain-specific 
> language. Take all this or leave it.

 From a domain language perspective jam is layered. The BB UI level is 
an abstraction independent of, as much as possible, bare targets and 
dependencies to allow for variant (OS, compiler, debug, etc.) 
independent specification of the targets and dependencies. The BB build 
layer translates that to real targets and dependencies, in which one 
virtual target may translate to multiple real targets, which are 
communicated to the jam build layer with a much smaller language. The 
jam build layer takes the info and adds more, like computed dependencies 
(includes), and computes the build sequence.

I think the unfortunate, from your perspective, aspect is that the BB UI 
layer, the BB build layer and interface to the jam build layer are all 
using the same Jam language. Hence it induces confusion in detecting 
where the layers are. And of course when there are inconsistencies in 
one layer it confuses things even more :-(

In the past we've discussed as to what might make a better language. 
Usually without resolutions of any kind. About the only determination 
we've come to is that the jam syntax is at minimum better suited for the 
declarative nature of BB UI descriptions than general purpose languages.

-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo