Subject: Re: [Boost-build] [future] Implementation language(s)..
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-10-26 12:51:32
On 26.10.2016 04:17, PJB wrote:
> I don't see any reason to actively prevent code-logic at any point.
> Unless there's some systemic flaw to such a consideration I have yet
> to understand.
> If the user doesn't need any logic in their declaration, they don't
> need to use any.
> If the user does need logic in their declaration, they shouldn't run
> into a brick wall of "we turned that off because we thought you
> wouldn't need it".
> As far as project declarations go, I suggest we keep things relatively
> logical, define a project-declaration as a class, thus inheritance can
> allow for extensible-flexibility without curtailing the "simplest"
> case - and of course python's support for dictionaries can allow for
> whole stacks of settings to be passed around.
Yes, I'm experimenting with such a (simple, natural) approach right now.
I'm not sure what b2's Python interface looks like, but it might be
better anyway to use something stand-alone for prototyping, rather than
try to hook it into the existing infrastructure.
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
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