On Tuesday 31 March 2009, Bill Hoffman wrote: > Marcel Loose wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > > > Wouldn't it be better if CMake kept track of these variables internally. > > I mean, usually the HAS_X variables are the result of calls to > > check_include_file() and check_function_exists(). The Autotools handle > > this under the hood. > > CMake might keep a list of these variables, possibly one per check_*() > > function. Or is there a reason to let the user handle this explicitly by > > specifying the list of HAS_X variables in the call to > > cmake_autoheader()? > > check_include_file does not even have to be used, there are lots of ways > to come up with variables that might be useful in a configured header > file. I don't really like magic behind the scene lists getting created.
I fully agree with that. Making it explicit is better, it makes the cmake code easier to read and understand (while requiring a bit more typing). Alex _______________________________________________ Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
