From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-06 10:51:47
"Johan Nilsson" <r.johan.nilsson_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> I guess making one rule explicit by
>> default and
>> then adding a new mechanism to make it back implicit is not very
>> attractive design solution.
> Agreed. I guess I'm advocating having the "test" target implicit as it
> should be easy enough to add an "explicit test" statement somewhere. I'm
> sure less test-infected users will disagree, though ...
I think it's easy enough to add "explicit" that uniformity outweighs
ease-of-use in this case. I guess I vote for implicit also.
-- 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