From: Jurko GospodnetiÄ (jurko.gospodnetic_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-07 12:30:13
> The names Jamfile.jam and Jamroot.jam are far too repetitive for my taste.
I do not really see anything wrong with Jamfile.jam and Jamroot.jam.
As far as repetition goes - not that big a deal with something you name
only once and never refer again by name. Except of course here in these
'endless' discussions. *GDR* :-)))
> 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?
Jamfile = project.jam
Jamroot = project-root.jam
The names seem ok as:
* They get grouped together when listing files in a directory.
* They get grouped together when listing files by extension.
* Consistent extension helps for recognizing the files
automatically by various tools.
Although I do not see any real difference between this and
Jamfile.jam /Jamroot.jam. :-)) Except perhaps that names project.jam and
project-root.jam do not have to be supported with capitalized initial
letter as they have no such historical usage. :-)))
> Even though this is "only" about names, I believe it would be worthwhile
> pondering on appropriate names to avoid further renaming in the future.
I agree. I can see undocumented names and/or inconsistently used
names in examples/docs/tests as being one of the problems with adapting
boost build. You go searching for a build tool - see such 'childish'
inconsistencies and decide to not use that project until it 'matures'...
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