"Jeff Flinn" <TriumphSprint2000@hotmail.com> writes:
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:uekbtq4f8.fsf@boost-consulting.com...
"Jeff Flinn" <TriumphSprint2000@hotmail.com> writes:
"Rene Rivera" <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> wrote in message news:4295E416.6030803@redshift-software.com...
David Abrahams wrote:
and the inconsistency in naming for the VC targets:
msvc // VC6.5 can we add vc6_5? vc7 // VC7 would vc7_0 be better? vc-7_1 // VC7.1 why the dash? why not vc7_1?
The dash is there for dumb reasons: we call the toolset files <toolsetname>-tools.jam
...
Do most users ever see(or need be concerned with) what these parameters eventually expand to?
I don't understand the question.
The previous response implied that the "-sTOOLS=vc-7_1" was used to generate file names like "vc-7_1-tools.jam". This led me to believe that the dashes and dots are currently required to ease the generation of such filenames.
Well, yeah. The elements of the TOOLS variable get "-tools.jam" appended and that's treated as a toolset file name.
I've never needed to know what was going on under the hood of bjam/build in the past. So if more user friendly names, I'd think that I wouldn't ever notice that "sTOOLS=vc7_1" generated/used file(s) named "vc-7_1-tools.jam". So couldn't there be more separation between the presentation and representation of the build system?
That's just hard to program and maintain.
In other words are the following doable?
bjam "-sTOOLS=vc6_5" install bjam "-sTOOLS=vc7_0" install bjam "-sTOOLS=vc7_1" install
Sure, but the easy way is just to rename the toolset files. But seriously, you really are comfortable with the underscore? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com