Re: [Boost-build] --toolset worries

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-24 10:11:44

on Thu May 24 2007, Vladimir Prus <ghost-AT-cs.msu.su> wrote:

> On Wednesday 16 May 2007 21:25, David Abrahams wrote:
>> 
>> on Tue May 15 2007, Vladimir Prus <ghost-AT-cs.msu.su> wrote:
>> 
>> > Over at IRC, and on mailing list, it seems --toolset option confuses 
>> > folks -- they extrapolate the syntax and try to use "--link=static"
>> > and so on.
>> >
>> > I think we probably better either:
>> >
>> > 1. Rename --toolset to --autoconfigure-toolset, or something.
>> > It might be better to disable auto-configuration for "toolset=foo" syntax
>> > at the same time, to make "toolset" feature no longer "special".
>> >
>> > 2. Remove "--toolset" completely. Retain autoconfiguration
>> > for "toolset=foo" and tell users to use "toolset=foo".
>> >
>> > For reasons I don't understand, I prefer (2). Comments?
>> 
>> I don't have a strong opinion, but I think the presence of
>> 
>>   foo=xxx
>> 
>> and
>> 
>>   --bar=baz
>> 
>> or even just
>> 
>>    --bar
>> 
>> on the same command-line will be confusing.  New users don't have a
>> conceptual grasp of the difference between features and command-line
>> options, and even more experienced users can't keep track of all the
>> feature names.
>
> On the other hand, there *is* fundamental difference between giving
> a value of a feature, and just random option. Features have some common
> semantics and they appears in target path, while option can have any effect
> whatsoever.
>
> It should be noted that we haven't had this confusing before, when
> --toolset *option* was not introduced, which makes me thing it's
> --toolset that confuses people.

I'm not opposed to changing that, but for the record, I still think
there is a deeper conceptual problem on the users' part that we're
encouraging.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com