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
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
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
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
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
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
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...
> >
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo