Default action is "install" ??

Vladimir Prus <ghostcs.msu.su> writes:

>> That splits current "<build>yes"
into what we actually have of implicit
>> vs. explicit building. This way we can do the more
convenient of setting
>> "<build>explicit" at the project
level, and then be able to select
>> specific targets to <build>implicit.
>
> I'm afraid this won't place nice with target
alternatives:
                        ^^^^^
                        "play"

> 	obj foo : foo_msvc.c : <toolset>msvc ;
>         obj foo : foo_gcc.c : <toolset>gcc ;
>         explicit foo ;
>
> To make 'explicit' a value of a 'build' property, you'd
have to duplicate it.

Surely when declaring target alternatives, the likelihood
that
something must be duplicated (e.g. "obj foo"  ) is quite
high?  I
don't see why "explicit" deserves special
treatment to avoid
duplication and I like Rene's suggestion.

Actually, I would prefer to see something like:

  obj foo 
     : [ alternative foo_msvc.c : <toolset>msvc ]
       [ alternative foo_gcc.c : <toolset>gcc ]
     : explicit  # common requirements here
  ;

which further improve declarativeness as well as removing
more
duplication.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build

David Abrahams wrote:
> Vladimir Prus <ghostcs.msu.su> writes:
> 
>>> That splits current
"<build>yes" into what we actually have of
implicit
>>> vs. explicit building. This way we can do the
more convenient of setting
>>> "<build>explicit" at the
project level, and then be able to select
>>> specific targets to <build>implicit.
>> I'm afraid this won't place nice with target
alternatives:
>                         ^^^^^
>                         "play"
> 
>> 	obj foo : foo_msvc.c : <toolset>msvc ;
>>         obj foo : foo_gcc.c : <toolset>gcc ;
>>         explicit foo ;
>>
>> To make 'explicit' a value of a 'build' property,
you'd have to duplicate it.
> 
> Surely when declaring target alternatives, the
likelihood that
> something must be duplicated (e.g. "obj foo"
 ) is
quite high?  I
> don't see why "explicit" deserves special
treatment to avoid
> duplication and I like Rene's suggestion.
> 
> Actually, I would prefer to see something like:
> 
>   obj foo 
>      : [ alternative foo_msvc.c : <toolset>msvc ]
>        [ alternative foo_gcc.c : <toolset>gcc ]
>      : explicit  # common requirements here
>   ;
> 
> which further improve declarativeness as well as
removing more
> duplication.

Good point about doing it in one target declaration. As it
happens 
that's currently possible as with the extra
<build>explicit:

obj foo
   : ## not sure if obj targets can have no sources here.
   : <toolset>msvc:<source>foo_msvc.c
     <toolset>gcc:<source>foo_gcc.c
     <build>explicit ;


-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software
.com
-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build

On Monday 20 November 2006 20:25, David Abrahams wrote:
> Vladimir Prus <ghostcs.msu.su> writes:
> >> That splits current
"<build>yes" into what we actually have of
implicit
> >> vs. explicit building. This way we can do the
more convenient of setting
> >> "<build>explicit" at the
project level, and then be able to select
> >> specific targets to <build>implicit.
> >
> > I'm afraid this won't place nice with target
alternatives:
>
>                         ^^^^^
>                         "play"
>
> > 	obj foo : foo_msvc.c : <toolset>msvc ;
> >         obj foo : foo_gcc.c : <toolset>gcc ;
> >         explicit foo ;
> >
> > To make 'explicit' a value of a 'build' property,
you'd have to duplicate
> > it.
>
> Surely when declaring target alternatives, the
likelihood that
> something must be duplicated (e.g. "obj foo"
 ) is
quite high?  I
> don't see why "explicit" deserves special
treatment to avoid
> duplication and I like Rene's suggestion.
>
> Actually, I would prefer to see something like:
>
>   obj foo
>
>      : [ alternative foo_msvc.c : <toolset>msvc ]
>
>        [ alternative foo_gcc.c : <toolset>gcc ]
>
>      : explicit  # common requirements here
>
>   ;
>
> which further improve declarativeness as well as
removing more
> duplication.

I think that such syntax has some advantages. In fact, I
plan to 
implement "named parameters" for main rules really
soon now,
and this syntax might be fused with it.

But let's do one thing at a time -- good or bad,
"explicit foo" works now.
Rene, will you make install targets explicit, or should I?

After that, can either Dave or Rene enter a new ticket about
better syntax?

Thanks,
Volodya



But let's 

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build

Vladimir Prus wrote:
> But let's do one thing at a time -- good or bad,
"explicit foo" works now.
> Rene, will you make install targets explicit, or should
I?

I almost missed this question... I made the
boost-root/Jamfile.v2 
install targets explicit. Was there more that needed to be
done?

-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software
.com
-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build

On Saturday 25 November 2006 17:26, Rene Rivera wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > But let's do one thing at a time -- good or bad,
"explicit foo" works
> > now. Rene, will you make install targets explicit,
or should I?
>
> I almost missed this question... I made the
boost-root/Jamfile.v2
> install targets explicit. Was there more that needed to
be done?

I think no. Thank you!

- Volodya

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build