From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-10 23:44:17
Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> The boost-build.jam at BOOST_ROOT sets
>> JAMFILE = [Bb]uild.jam [Jj]amfile.v2 ;
>> As far as I can tell, the first pattern is not used for anything and
>> can be deleted. Any objections?
> I use it at:
> But since that's not on the regular root it doesn't matter.
I don't know what that means really, but OK.
> I do have a preferential objection. I prefer the more lucid "build.jam"
> name than any of the others.
> And as I've mentioned before having an
> extension on the file names is considerably more convenient on people as
> it lets them integrate with the OS facilities.
I understand that argument, but it's hard to see build.jam as a
particularly lucid name. That's like naming a C++ source file
At least Jamfile and Jamroot visibly distinguish themselves as user
build descriptions as opposed to parts of the build system itself.
Also, I note that we don't have a .jam-suffixed name for Jamroot.
>> Secondly, is there any reason we can't change the pattern to
>> JAMFILE = [Jj]amfile(.v2)? ;
>> That would allow us to start writing Jamfiles called "Jamfile," which
>> matches the name used in the BB documentation.
> You could just not set JAMFILE and use the built in value set in
Sounds good to me... although I see project.jam looking in the global
module (presumably to get JAMFILE out of the environment) first, which
seems like a mistake.
-- 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