On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:45 PM, J Decker <d3c...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Olaf van der Spek <olafvds...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Michael Wild <them...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> The problem is that there IS NO CONVENTION on name decoration. >> >> Why is that a problem? > > well that any convention that YOU want, since there is no standard > outside of what YOU desire, means you need to apply naming conventions > to meat YOUR criteria.
I'm still not sure what the problem is. >>> And yes, especially as a library developer you have to be aware of things. >> >> Why? >> > > Becuase it's something YOU desire, that the rest of the world rarely > uses. I've seen less than half a dozen projects that attempt to do > that, and then have to fight with converting their projects to use > just standard names of libraries I already have (strip off _debug and > d's appended to library names for no good reason). The product of a Why is the -d suffix a problem for you? > single build type is put in a single place all together, so why would > there ever be a mixture. How many libraries under linux actually > install realease and debug together? I'm not talking about Linux. > and under windows there is no > particular standard for where to install things, so it's entirely open > for you to manipulate how you want. Putting libs in the lib dir so the linker can find them sounds like a good idea to me. It seems you're saying that since there's no standard yet, we shouldn't bother to improve the situation at all. Olaf _______________________________________________ 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
