Re: [CMake] check_include_file macro

Steven Van Ingelgem wrote: The use case here is more like: - run CMake: check_include_file(uuid/uuid.h HAS_UUID_H) if(not HAS_UUID_H) --> Fatal error + help how to resolve it. - resolve the problem - re-run CMake. find_path might be a better choice in this case as that is what it was des

Re: [CMake] CMake and Lua

Brandon Van Every wrote: > We're still at (1). I'm willing to drop discussion of CMake --> Lua > translators for 3 months, to give Bill time to think. *If* I don't It really all depends on how far back the CMake compatibility has to go. A far more likely scenario is, CMake --> Lua translat

Re: [CMake] Re: CMake and Lua

On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 15:20 -0500, Brandon Van Every wrote: > > * no well defined syntax: > > > > - missing datatypes; all seems to be a string. Mastering ';' and > > spaces is trial-and-error game :( > > Totally agree on this point. It needs documentation. My suggestion > on the matter

Re: [CMake] CMake and Lua

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Especially in open source, I think it is > reasonable to make developers do trivial amounts of work to move on, > at some point, if the migration tools have been thoroughly tested and > proven in the field. I di

[CMake] CMake and Lua

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:59 AM, Sebastien BARRE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Brandon wrote: > >I'm willing to give Bill some time to think about the "undoability" > >of CMake --> Lua translation > > Great. And by "some time" you mean "someday", therefore "2 years", > right. Your styl

Re: [CMake] Re: CMake and Lua

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Enrico Scholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > > > >> I find that the CMake script language seems designed to make COBOL > >> coders feel they don't actually have the worst job in the world. > >> > > So what exactly about

Re: [CMake] Re: CMake and Lua

Am Samstag 01 März 2008 19:44:36 schrieb Enrico Scholz: > CMake is a tool written for developers. So you can expect that they have > some understanding of grammar and semantics of a computer language. At the moment I try to teach some long term MSVS Developers to use cmake. They were scept

[CMake] Re: CMake and Lua

Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I find that the CMake script language seems designed to make COBOL >> coders feel they don't actually have the worst job in the world. >> > So what exactly about the CMake language gives you this feel? * the mix of case-sensitive and case-insensitve lan

Re: [CMake] check_include_file macro

The use case here is more like: - run CMake: check_include_file(uuid/uuid.h HAS_UUID_H) if(not HAS_UUID_H) --> Fatal error + help how to resolve it. - resolve the problem - re-run CMake. Greetz On 01/03/2008, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Philip Lowman wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 1,

Re: [CMake] check_include_file macro

Philip Lowman wrote: On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Steven Van Ingelgem <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: In fact what I want is "check_include_file( uuid/uuid.h HAS_UUID_H )". Where this check is a "blocking check" (in other words, cmake will stop processing t

Re: [CMake] check_include_file macro

Thanks Philip :) I noticed that one too, but isn't there a way to do it from within CMakeLists? On 01/03/2008, Philip Lowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Steven Van Ingelgem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > In fact what I want is "check_include_file( uuid/uuid.h

Re: [CMake] check_include_file macro

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Steven Van Ingelgem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In fact what I want is "check_include_file( uuid/uuid.h HAS_UUID_H )". > Where this check is a "blocking check" (in other words, cmake will > stop processing the cmakelists.txt)... The next time it should > re-check

Re: [CMake] check_include_file macro

In fact what I want is "check_include_file( uuid/uuid.h HAS_UUID_H )". Where this check is a "blocking check" (in other words, cmake will stop processing the cmakelists.txt)... The next time it should re-check the include file... As you can see find_package is not needed in this case. Greetings

Re: [CMake] Re: CMake and Lua

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Bill Hoffman wrote: > Rodolfo Schulz de Lima wrote: > > > The main issue with CMake script isn't when writing a build script, but > > when writing auxiliary stuff, like a more elaborate Find*.cmake. Just > > look at FindwxWidgets.cmake to see what I mean... > >

Re: [CMake] CMake and Lua

James Mansion wrote: Bill Hoffman wrote: So what exactly about the CMake language gives you this feel? That would be: 1) the syntax and 2) the modularity constructs I know its 'only' scripting to manage declarations into the engine. Its a shame you can't write emitters except in C++ but that

Re: [CMake] check_include_file macro

Steven Van Ingelgem wrote: > Hi, > Hi, > > I'm testing with the "check_include_file" macro but I have an issue with it. > I need it to stop working if the include file is not found, and > re-check the next time it is ran... > normally check_include_file is to check for standard include files

[CMake] check_include_file macro

Hi, I'm testing with the "check_include_file" macro but I have an issue with it. I need it to stop working if the include file is not found, and re-check the next time it is ran... But how can I achieve that? Because the behaviour I got is that it runs but doesn't re-check anymore... Thanks fo

Re: [CMake] CMake and Lua

Bill Hoffman wrote: So what exactly about the CMake language gives you this feel? That would be: 1) the syntax and 2) the modularity constructs I know its 'only' scripting to manage declarations into the engine. Its a shame you can't write emitters except in C++ but that certainly wouldn't