"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com> writes:
This practice could be applied to any tools including bjam and wave
And bcp, and...
This sounds like a pretty ambitious plan for restructuring what we deliver. I do agree wholeheartedly that we need to reconsider the structure of what we deliver, but I don't neccessarily think this is the right plan. It doesn't seem to have precedent (at least not that I've seen), and I'd want to see a much more detailed rationale before buying into the details as you've described them.
Actually this discussion moved slightly beside the point. My original point was that wave should be treated as a tool (like bjam). If (once) we agree on that we could discuss in detail what should it means.
But that's backwards! I certainly can't agree that it should be treated like a tool without understanding its implications.
bjam could in theory be used as library to implement custom build systems.
Not really, its design is not appropriate for use as a library.
bcp could in theory be used as library to implement different code split utilities. wave could be used to build custom c++ preprocessors. We could even have c++ compiler that could be used as a library to implement custom compilers for c++ with extensions. But I believe we need to treat them all as a tools - whatever that means we decide later.
It's hard to see how you can hold a belief so strongly without even understanding what it means. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com