[CMake] Re: CMake and Lua

2008-03-03 Thread Rodolfo Schulz de Lima
Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva escreveu: The point is that if you need to do complex programming stuff (and that is a big if for build systems, because you should focus on simplicity), why not use a programming language and let CMake Script take care of the build management... Using another ext

Re: [CMake] Re: CMake and Lua

2008-03-03 Thread Sylvain Benner
I don't buy the "do it with comments" approach. Something changes, then the comments are wrong. It's a fact that the code must be self explanatory as much as possible but it will never be as powerful as good and up to date comments. I don't buy the "duplication of code" approach. --Sylvain

Re: [CMake] Re: CMake and Lua

2008-03-01 Thread Timothy M. Shead
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] Re: CMake and Lua

2008-03-01 Thread Brandon Van Every
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

2008-03-01 Thread Maik Beckmann
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

2008-03-01 Thread Enrico Scholz
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] Re: CMake and Lua

2008-03-01 Thread Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva
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] Re: CMake and Lua

2008-02-29 Thread Brandon Van Every
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Philip Lowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bill Hoffman escreveu: > > > > > So what exactly about the CMake language gives you this feel? > > > > Hi, let me just add my op

[CMake] Re: CMake and Lua

2008-02-29 Thread Rodolfo Schulz de Lima
Rodolfo Schulz de Lima escreveu: building, that's what you're being paid to do, not to create another language, there's already a ton of them. The down side is backward Hi, I think I've used the wrong words here, I'm not saying what someone's being paid to do... that could be harsh out of con

[CMake] Re: CMake and Lua

2008-02-29 Thread Rodolfo Schulz de Lima
Bill Hoffman escreveu: Thanks for the feedback. I am wondering if there is something that can be done in CMake c++ code to make writing a Find module like wx widgets easier. Maybe regular expressions in the find_* commands would help. Lots of the verbosity comes from finding different names

Re: [CMake] Re: CMake and Lua

2008-02-29 Thread Bill Hoffman
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... Thanks for the feedback. I am wondering if there is something that c

Re: [CMake] Re: CMake and Lua

2008-02-29 Thread Sylvain Benner
Will Kitware consider making CMAKE_ALLOW_LOOSE_LOOP_CONSTRUCTS default to on starting with 2.6.0 and doing away with this annoying construct? I think it would be a cool things to do this. Soon I will reformat all our scripts to remove this uneeded stuff, I'm pretty sure that a lot of CMake us

Re: [CMake] Re: CMake and Lua

2008-02-29 Thread Philip Lowman
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bill Hoffman escreveu: > > So what exactly about the CMake language gives you this feel? > > Hi, let me just add my opinion on this one. I really think that in a if > clause, having to repeat the condition in the

[CMake] Re: CMake and Lua

2008-02-29 Thread Rodolfo Schulz de Lima
Bill Hoffman escreveu: So what exactly about the CMake language gives you this feel? Hi, let me just add my opinion on this one. I really think that in a if clause, having to repeat the condition in the else, elseif and endif is a little too much verbose for my taste. The following snippet i

Re: [CMake] Re: CMake and Lua

2008-02-25 Thread Brandon Van Every
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexander Neundorf escreveu: > > > The build system should provide what you need without requiring that you > > actually need to program something. > > I think this statement is true regarding the most common bui

[CMake] Re: CMake and Lua

2008-02-25 Thread Rodolfo Schulz de Lima
Alexander Neundorf escreveu: The build system should provide what you need without requiring that you actually need to program something. I think this statement is true regarding the most common building use cases. But the build system should not limit what you can do in more elaborate buildi