On Nov 28, 2007 1:48 AM, George Neill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/28/07, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - better scoping
> > - higher quality, outsourced documentation
> > - outsource core language bugs
> > - popularity boost for 5 years
> > - some advanced programming cons
Quoting Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Nov 28, 2007 1:16 AM, Sebastien BARRE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 11/28/2007 01:06 AM, Brandon Van Every wrote:
>On Nov 28, 2007 12:56 AM, George Neill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe I am missing the obvious, but I am trying to under
On Nov 28, 2007 1:16 AM, Sebastien BARRE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 11/28/2007 01:06 AM, Brandon Van Every wrote:
> >On Nov 28, 2007 12:56 AM, George Neill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe I am missing the obvious, but I am trying to understand -why- this
> > > list is talking abou
Brandon,
On 11/28/07, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - better scoping
- higher quality, outsourced documentation
- outsource core language bugs
> - popularity boost for 5 years
- some advanced programming constructs gained
I certainly can't debate those (unless CMake develop
Hi,
how to install files generated by custom targets, eg. doxygen? The files are
generated in ${DOXYGEN_BINARY_DIR}/html ( /doc/html ).
here is the /doc/CMakeLists.txt
##
PROJECT(doxygen)
FIND_PACKAGE(Doxygen REQUIRED)
CONFIGURE_FILE(${doxygen_SOURC
On Nov 28, 2007 12:56 AM, George Neill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Maybe I am missing the obvious, but I am trying to understand -why- this
> list is talking about replacing the current CMake language.
- better scoping
- higher quality, outsourced documentation
- outsource core language bugs
-
Hi CMakers!
Being relatively new to CMake (3 months now), this whole LUA discussion
seems very odd ... (so please accept an apology for my ignorance in advance)
> An additional thought is to export global constants (variables), so we
> > can basically create keywords. So instead of:
> > cm_add_li
On Nov 27, 2007 10:13 PM, E. Wing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you are misinterpreting some things about the Lua syntax.
My understanding of Lua syntax improved greatly after reading the
docs for 15 minutes.
> Or we could exploit the varargs capability and not even use a table
> and just
On Nov 27, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Filipe Sousa wrote:
James Bigler wrote:
I just noticed this Wiki entry. What version of CMake was this
introduced in? It's not mentioned in any of the help files, so I
can't track when it was introduced.
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ#Isn.27t_the_.22Expressi
I think you are misinterpreting some things about the Lua syntax.
The heart and soul of Lua is the 'table'. It is *the* data structure
in Lua. A table is an hash or associative array. But in Lua, a table
can also be an array. There are some very interesting optimizations
under the hood that make s
James Bigler wrote:
> I just noticed this Wiki entry. What version of CMake was this
> introduced in? It's not mentioned in any of the help files, so I
> can't track when it was introduced.
>
> http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ#Isn.27t_the_.22Expression.
> 22_in_the_.22ELSE_.28Expression.
On Nov 27, 2007 4:25 PM, Mike Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How about we give the cmake developers some time to address some of
> the shortcomings of CMake BEFORE we toss the baby out with the bath
> water...
Sounds good to me. Let's see where CMake is 6 months from now, with
respect to
On Nov 27, 2007 4:02 PM, Juan Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My only desire is that we move on to another language better than the
> one we have now. Lua seems to fit the bill.
Just realized an interesting argument *not* to use an off-the-shelf
language. Over the long haul, you lose cont
At 11/27/2007 04:02 PM, Juan Sanchez wrote:
The reason I suggested Tcl was it makes strings easy. Most everything
is a string in Tcl.
Everything is a string in Tcl :)
I'm not a Tcl noob, and things are not *that* easy in Tcl: when you
have to throw an "eval" now and then, you know someone e
On Nov 27, 2007, at 4:08 PM, Brandon Van Every wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 3:50 PM, Juan Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The goal of course is to have a language which is well documented,
Yep.
popular,
Or at least not unpopular. There's a perception that TCL has "lost"
the scripting war
On Nov 27, 2007 3:50 PM, Juan Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The goal of course is to have a language which is well documented,
Yep.
> popular,
Or at least not unpopular. There's a perception that TCL has "lost"
the scripting wars.
> self-consistent,
Yep.
> and not home-made.
Well, th
Brandon Van Every wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2007 3:22 PM, Juan Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How about?
>>
>> cm_add_library{"simpleLib STATIC simpleLib.cxx simpleCLib.c simpleWe.cpp"}
>
> That paradigm is crippled with respect to FOREACH and LIST style
> processing. I can't really see everyone
On Nov 27, 2007 3:22 PM, Juan Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How about?
>
> cm_add_library{"simpleLib STATIC simpleLib.cxx simpleCLib.c simpleWe.cpp"}
That paradigm is crippled with respect to FOREACH and LIST style
processing. I can't really see everyone on the CMake script side of
thing
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 November 2007, Juan Sanchez wrote:
> ...
>> How about?
>>
>> cm_add_library{"simpleLib STATIC simpleLib.cxx simpleCLib.c simpleWe.cpp"}
>
> Are you sure putting it all in one quoted string will make getting the
> quoting
> right simpler than it is now ?
On 11/27/07, clinton wrote:
> On Saturday 24 November 2007 3:23:16 pm Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to propose the following patch or something similar to
> > add support for moc compiler options. Currently, one can do the
> > following:
> >
> > SET(moc-source
I'm working with 3 CMakeLists.txt files I didn't write, so I'm trying to
figure out the reasoning behind them.
-Application A has a CMakeLists.txt file with TARGET_LINK_LIBARIES(LibB,
LibC).
-LibB and LibC each have their own subfolders and CMakeLists.txt file, and
use ADD_LIBRARY to declare their
On Tuesday 27 November 2007, Juan Sanchez wrote:
...
> How about?
>
> cm_add_library{"simpleLib STATIC simpleLib.cxx simpleCLib.c simpleWe.cpp"}
Are you sure putting it all in one quoted string will make getting the quoting
right simpler than it is now ?
Alex
Quoting Ken Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I doubt seriously we will adopt a second language in CMake. There is no
question of maintaining the current language. It has to and will be kept in
CMake. It was very easy to add Lua to CMake which is nice (literally it was
probably 15 hours of effort). Pa
Hi!
Unfortunately, I do not have any small project using cmake.
I will make some if needed.
I tried it on Fedora w/ CMake CVS.
uic -version gives me
"User Interface Compiler for Qt version 3.3.8"
What if you change the regex to this?
IF("${QTVERSION_UIC}" MATCHES ".* 3\\..*")
I tried thi
Brandon Van Every wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2007 2:32 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 2007 3:55 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I noticed the "unpack" command.
>>>
>>> sources = {
>>> "simpleLib.cxx",
>>> "simpleCLib.c",
>>> "simpleWe.cpp"
>>> }
On Nov 27, 2007 2:32 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2007 3:55 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I noticed the "unpack" command.
> >
> > sources = {
> > "simpleLib.cxx",
> > "simpleCLib.c",
> > "simpleWe.cpp"
> > }
> >
> > cm_add_library ("
On Nov 26, 2007 3:55 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I noticed the "unpack" command.
>
> sources = {
> "simpleLib.cxx",
> "simpleCLib.c",
> "simpleWe.cpp"
> }
>
> cm_add_library ("simpleLib", "STATIC", unpack(sources));
>
> Would this be necessary / paradigmatic in Lua?
Bah, wrong mailing list, sorry.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
On Nov 27, 2007 1:34 PM, Félix C. Morency <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have another issue with Dart2. Every timestamp is fixed to
> "theCurrentDay/theCurrentMonth/theCurrentYear 20:00". Actually the problem
> is that the build hour is always 20:00.
>
> I also have other questions/recomman
On Tuesday 27 November 2007 10:52:55 am Anka Kochanowska wrote:
> Thanks for answering.
> Our application is built on different systems. Some of them have Qt3 and
> Qt4, some have not been properly installed, so having the condition
> would be helpful to diagnose the problem.
> FindQt3.cmake fails
Daniel Rueckert wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to build some statically linked executables on a linux
box. I have added the "-static" option to the linker flags and specified
static link libraries but for some reason cmake still adds the option
"-Wl,-Bdynamic" flag to the linker options. Is there any wa
Thanks for answering.
Our application is built on different systems. Some of them have Qt3 and
Qt4, some have not been properly installed, so having the condition
would be helpful to diagnose the problem.
FindQt3.cmake fails on Ubuntu, Debian and Mandrake. So we comment out
the condition, but .
On Saturday 24 November 2007 3:23:16 pm Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to propose the following patch or something similar to
> add support for moc compiler options. Currently, one can do the
> following:
>
> SET(moc-sources foo.h bar.h)
> QT4_WRAP_CPP(sources ${moc-
On Tuesday 27 November 2007 8:21:38 am Anka Kochanowska wrote:
> Hi!
> I am using Qt3 (3.3.3)
> In my CMakeList.txt I have conditionals:
>
> IF(QT_WRAP_UI)
> QT_WRAP_UI( Basic IGNS_BASIC_HDR IGNS_BASIC_SRC ${IGNS_BASIC_GUI_SRC} )
> ENDIF(QT_WRAP_UI)
>
> This used to work still in CMake 2.4 patch
On Nov 27, 2007 11:35 AM, Ken Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I doubt seriously we will adopt a second language in CMake. There is no
> question of maintaining the current language. It has to and will be kept in
> CMake. It was very easy to add Lua to CMake which is nice (literally it was
> pro
Hi,
I am trying to build some statically linked executables on a linux
box. I have added the "-static" option to the linker flags and specified
static link libraries but for some reason cmake still adds the option
"-Wl,-Bdynamic" flag to the linker options. Is there any way around this?
Thanks,
I doubt seriously we will adopt a second language in CMake. There is no
question of maintaining the current language. It has to and will be kept in
CMake. It was very easy to add Lua to CMake which is nice (literally it was
probably 15 hours of effort). Part of this experiment was to see if it was
> - The source code seems to have been crappified by windows. There's
> missing +x permissions on executable files and cr-lf
> linefeeds everywhere.
Yup, just a quick zip of what is on my disc which is windows hence the CR/LF
etc.
> - The source does:
> #include
> but the bootstrap/cmakelists
Hi!
I am using Qt3 (3.3.3)
In my CMakeList.txt I have conditionals:
IF(QT_WRAP_UI)
QT_WRAP_UI( Basic IGNS_BASIC_HDR IGNS_BASIC_SRC ${IGNS_BASIC_GUI_SRC} )
ENDIF(QT_WRAP_UI)
This used to work still in CMake 2.4 patch 3. Since themn, the
FindQt3.cmake has been changed and it does not
recognize
Hi Ken,
Wow, thank you for playing with this. I personally think it's great.
Every so often, I have to write some evil stuff in CMake script, and
it always leaves me frustrated with things sometimes not working
correctly. Working with a well known and well defined language is a
big plus for me, a
40 matches
Mail list logo
