Re: [Boost-build] [Bb]uild.jam?

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:
>
> http://boost.cvs.sourceforge.net/boost/website/feed/build.jam
> http://boost.cvs.sourceforge.net/boost/website/feed/downloads/build.jam
> http://boost.cvs.sourceforge.net/boost/website/feed/news/build.jam
>
> 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. 

Lucid?

> 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
run.cpp.

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 
> project.jam.

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