Re: [Boost-users] problem with boost compilation

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] problem with boost compilation
From: Lars Viklund (zao_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-01 08:19:10

On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 08:06:30AM -0400, Nat Linden wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Martin Elzen <martinelzen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> > Ohad Barta <sohadb1357_at_[hidden]>
> > wrote:
> 
> > > what is the corresponding cmd compilation command? I tried to specify all
> > > the corresponding flags but for some reason it doesn't work,(for example-
> > > despite using the flag --address-model=64, the folder "address-model-64"
> > > wasn't constructed in my folders hierarchy tree, so I guess that this flag
> > > was ignored)
> 
> > There may be other errors, but what jumps out at me right now is that the "address-model=" part does NOT require two minus-signs in front of it...
> 
> What would be the drawback to supporting all such switches in both
> syntaxes? (address-model= or --address-model=)

The set of options are rather fixed and domain-unspecific.
The set of features isn't and are up to the particular things you're
trying to build.

Mixing the two together is a dangerous, incomplete and completely wrong
thing to do.

Users should take care in understanding the command line tool they use,
and stop assuming that it behaves according to some particular GNU-like
environment they are familiar with.

GCC multicharacter flags start with a single dash. Windows parameters
start with a /. You don't see applications changing to handle those
worldviews.

-- 
Lars Viklund | zao_at_[hidden]