on Thu May 24 2007, Vladimir Prus <ghost-AT-cs.msu.su>
wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 May 2007 21:25, David Abrahams wrote:
>>
>> on Tue May 15 2007, Vladimir Prus
<ghost-AT-cs.msu.su> wrote:
>>
>> > Over at IRC, and on mailing list, it seems
--toolset option confuses
>> > folks -- they extrapolate the syntax and try
to use "--link=static"
>> > and so on.
>> >
>> > I think we probably better either:
>> >
>> > 1. Rename --toolset to
--autoconfigure-toolset, or something.
>> > It might be better to disable
auto-configuration for "toolset=foo" syntax
>> > at the same time, to make "toolset"
feature no longer "special".
>> >
>> > 2. Remove "--toolset" completely.
Retain autoconfiguration
>> > for "toolset=foo" and tell users to
use "toolset=foo".
>> >
>> > For reasons I don't understand, I prefer (2).
Comments?
>>
>> I don't have a strong opinion, but I think the
presence of
>>
>> foo=xxx
>>
>> and
>>
>> --bar=baz
>>
>> or even just
>>
>> --bar
>>
>> on the same command-line will be confusing. New
users don't have a
>> conceptual grasp of the difference between features
and command-line
>> options, and even more experienced users can't keep
track of all the
>> feature names.
>
> On the other hand, there *is* fundamental difference
between giving
> a value of a feature, and just random option. Features
have some common
> semantics and they appears in target path, while option
can have any effect
> whatsoever.
>
> It should be noted that we haven't had this confusing
before, when
> --toolset *option* was not introduced, which makes me
thing it's
> --toolset that confuses people.
I'm not opposed to changing that, but for the record, I
still think
there is a deeper conceptual problem on the users' part that
we're
encouraging.
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-cons
ulting.com
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build
|
