29 Jul
2017
29 Jul
'17
2:50 p.m.
Edward Diener wrote:
On 7/29/2017 5:02 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
I've given it some thought and I like the BCM approach; BCM should be a library in libs/bcm (if we retain the name).
Perhaps a tool in tools/bcm ?
One could argue for that, if we go by principle alone. Pragmatically speaking, I prefer being able to submodule boostorg/foo and boostorg/bcm side by side and then have `include(../bcm/bcm_deploy)` in foo/CMakeLists.txt, instead of having to submodule foo as libs/foo and bcm as tools/bcm and then have `include(../../tools/bcm/bcm_deploy)` in foo/CMakeLists.txt.