From: Johan Nilsson (r.johan.nilsson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-24 01:45:54
David Abrahams wrote:
> on Fri Apr 20 2007, "Johan Nilsson" <r.johan.nilsson-AT-gmail.com>
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> on Tue Apr 17 2007, "Johan Nilsson" <r.johan.nilsson-AT-gmail.com>
>>>> - "Details on proposed semantics":
>>>> Sounds reasonable, but what about requirements specified for the
>>>> project at a higher-level Jamfile?
>>>> Shouldn't these also be considered explicit, or at
>>>> least higher ranked than the defaults?
>>> I don't understand. Example, please?
>> prompt> bjam debug-symbols=on
>> project foo : requirements <debug-symbols>on ;
>> prompt> bjam
> Sorry, I still can't understand what that is supposed to mean. What
> are "~=" and "+" doing there?
I meant that the combination of the latter two items is roughly equivalent
to the former bjam invocation, in terms of later target selection. Sorry,
that's the best explanation I can give right now.
>>>> Just throwing out an idea off the top of my head: What about
>>>> ranking the properties from e.g. high-to-low: explicit
>>>> (command-line) => explicit (project requirements) => explicit
>>>> (target requirements) => implicit (default)? Don't know if that
>>>> would make sense, though.
>>> Sounds complicated. Is it driven by a real use-case?
>> As I said - "off the top of my head". It would probably be complex to
>> implement. Also, I suppose that target requirements should be ranked
>> higher than project requirements. See previous comment about project
>> requirements, though.
> I don't believe that it's appropriate to add complexity without real
> use cases (and sufficiently important ones) to justify it.
Well, I guess I'll have to agree.
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