RE: [CMake] Re: function and raise_scope commands (+ unset bug)

2008-02-18 Thread Sebastien BARRE
At 2/18/2008 10:10 AM, Ken Martin wrote: > > FUNCTION(SET_VAR2 varname) >SET_VAR1(${varname}) > ENDFUNCTION(SET_VAR2) And you should live with that. And like it dang it! :) I'm linking it but I'm kinda surprised you wouldn't go for something beautiful *and* eternally classic like a new ma

RE: [CMake] Re: function and raise_scope commands (+ unset bug)

2008-02-18 Thread Ken Martin
> Would > RAISE_SCOPE(var1 var2 ... varN) > be better ? > Why was the syntax changed from that to > RAISE_SCOPE(varname value) ? > (which was basically a set() and that's why converted to > set(... PARENT_SCOPE) ) The old syntax of raise scope often required that you first set the value of the va

RE: [CMake] Re: function and raise_scope commands (+ unset bug)

2008-02-18 Thread Ken Martin
> FUNCTION(SET_VAR1 varname) >SET(${varname} "There's science to do" PARENT_SCOPE) > ENDFUNCTION(SET_VAR1) > > FUNCTION(SET_VAR2 varname) >SET_VAR1(${varname}) > ENDFUNCTION(SET_VAR2) > > SET_VAR2(foo) > MESSAGE("${foo}") > > Obviously foo is not set, since it is now set in SET_VAR2 scop

[CMake] Re: function and raise_scope commands (+ unset bug)

2008-02-17 Thread Brandon Van Every
On Feb 17, 2008 6:01 AM, Pau Garcia i Quiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As a reminder, here comes the nomenclature in Ruby: > > Scope Prefix Example > - -- --- > global variable $$global > instance variable @

Re: [CMake] Re: function and raise_scope commands (+ unset bug)

2008-02-17 Thread Pau Garcia i Quiles
Quoting Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I have to admit, PARENT_SCOPE nomenclature bugs me. I don't know of any mainstream programming language that explicitly asks me to think about scope when setting a variable. Ruby asks. But it does so in a so nicely and clear way that you actual

Re: [CMake] Re: function and raise_scope commands (+ unset bug)

2008-02-17 Thread Brandon Van Every
On Feb 16, 2008 3:48 PM, Alexander Neundorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Any opinion whether RAISE_SCOPE/PARENT_SCOPE should propagate to the parent > directory if it's used outside a function ? What if I do want a variable to "propagate up" through nested functions functions, but I don't want a

Re: [CMake] Re: function and raise_scope commands (+ unset bug)

2008-02-16 Thread Filipe Sousa
Sebastien BARRE wrote: OK, back to PARENT_SCOPE. Well, Tcl/Tk has 'upvar' (which RAISE_SCOPE was inspired from), *and* 'global', which would pretty much declare variables inside a procedure/function to be of the "global scope" nature. I don't really like any of them. If I had to give a (crazy)

Re: [CMake] Re: function and raise_scope commands (+ unset bug)

2008-02-16 Thread Sebastien BARRE
At 2/16/2008 03:48 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: Would RAISE_SCOPE(var1 var2 ... varN) be better ? Why was the syntax changed from that to RAISE_SCOPE(varname value) ? (which was basically a set() and that's why converted to set(... PARENT_SCOPE) ) Sorry, I missed the fact that RAISE_SCOPE ha

Re: [CMake] Re: function and raise_scope commands (+ unset bug)

2008-02-16 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Saturday 16 February 2008, Sebastien BARRE wrote: Hi Sebastian, ... > Hey guys, ... > Obviously foo is not set, since it is now set in SET_VAR2 scope. Bummer. > So now I have to do things like this: > > FUNCTION(SET_VAR2 varname) >SET_VAR1(varname_proxy) >SET(${varname} ${varname_proxy

Re: [CMake] Re: function and raise_scope commands (+ unset bug)

2008-02-16 Thread Sebastien BARRE
At 2/16/2008 02:13 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > I don't mean to remove the SET(PARENT_SCOPE) feature, where the main > purpose is to set a global variable from within a function. > But if SET( ... PARENT_SCOPE) is called outside a function, the effect is > that the variable is set in the par