20 Jul
2010
20 Jul
'10
5:58 p.m.
On 7/20/2010 1:54 PM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
On 7/20/2010 1:06 PM, John Maddock wrote:
For those reasons, Rene and I have decided that "bjam.exe" should go. We're thinking about naming the executable simply "build.exe", since no other build tool bothered to take it.
The name bjam is no doubt hard-coded in many build scripts and renaming it will create a lot of unnecessary bugs.
Good point.
+1 for leaving it "bjam". This is silly.
There's nothing silly here. We're solving a real problem that confuses real users.
Then I vote for Robert's suggestion: CLEARBS -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com