From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-18 06:05:23
On Sunday 15 April 2007 16:42, David Abrahams wrote:
> Volodya and I have been talking about how target alternatives work
> today in Boost.Build. We seem to agree that something is wrong with
> them, but that's about all. We have different opinions about what's
> most broken, and therefore different ideas what should be changed. We
> would appreciate if members of this list help us by expressing their
> You can read my proposal at
It appears that our discussion in this thread quickly goes into direction
of comparing different analogies to the problems discussed. Before we
get to far, I'd like to revisit some higher-level points.
Dave, it seems like your proposal has three major aspects:
1. You claim that using one syntactic elements for both
requirements and alternative selection is good.
2. You claim that it's often desirable to express
"select this alternative is either <feature1>value1 or ...
... or <featureN>valueN" is in properties.
3. You claim that alternative selection should consider
only explicitly specified properties.
Is that correct, and are there any other important points I've miseed?
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