From: Johan Nilsson (r.johan.nilsson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-07 03:30:11
Jurko GospodnetiÄ wrote:
> Hi Rene.
>> There's been a long standing debate between myself and others about
>> the names :-) I personally prefer the more descriptive, and direct,
>> names of project-root.jam (or project.jam, or root.jam) and
>> build.jam. But I've only "complained" about the names when someone
>> suggest to remove the option of letting me use my preferred names
>> ;-) Hence having a consistent suggested names in docs is fine with
>> me. But preventing the use of others, with things like deprecation
>> messages, is not.
> Ok. In that case would it be ok to go with:
> * Make Jamfile.jam and Jamroot.jam be the 'official' names.
The names Jamfile.jam and Jamroot.jam are far too repetitive for my taste. I
believe that something along the lines of RenÃ©s suggestions should be made
the default/preferred instead.
Thinking out loud:
- The dual nature of Jamroot makes it a bit hard to name; perhaps
root-project.jam would be an alternative to project-root.jam/root.jam?
- Also, what about using project.jam instead of build.jam, as each
file-formerly-known-as-Jamfile "is-a" project but does not necessarily
define build targets?
Even though this is "only" about names, I believe it would be worthwhile
pondering on appropriate names to avoid further renaming in the future.
Just my 0.05EUR.
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