On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/21/2010 11:49 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Stephan Menzel <stephan.menzel@gmail.com> wrote:
... perhaps bjam should complain about non-existing switches...
That would add considerably to robustness.
Any possibility of adding a check for non-existent switches?
Sorry I overlooked this thread.. Which switches are you referring to? Switches given to bjam? To the toolsets?
IIUC, the OP used this command line after a booststrap: ./bjam.exe --architecture=amd64 --address-model=64 -j2 link=shared ... and Volodya replied that "Neither--architecture=amd64 nor --address-model=64 ever worked." Thus the comment about the possibility of adding a check for non-existent switches. Providing some options that require no "-', some that require "-", and some that require "--" may make sense from an internal perspective, but this is terribly confusing to the user. So the user often makes mistakes. To have the mistakes silently ignored makes it difficult or impossible for the ordinary user. --Beman