RE: [CMake] a backwards compatible language simplification

2006-05-22 Thread Ken Martin
> >Do you plan to also remove the parenthesis in a future release ? > > > >Gaetan > > My patch also made any unparenthesized cmake macro/function call > FOO > equivalent to the same call without any arguments > FOO() > > This required some changes to the parser/scanner. I'd be happy to > regener

Re: [CMake] a backwards compatible language simplification

2006-05-22 Thread Lloyd Hilaiel
/-- Around 10 PM on [05/18/06] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "said" -- >That's nice already - changing 3 times the conditions in a if-else-endif >construct was quite boring :-) > >Do you plan to also remove the parenthesis in a future release ? > >Gaetan My patch also made any unparenthesized cmake macro/

Re: [CMake] a backwards compatible language simplification

2006-05-19 Thread Filipe Sousa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ken Martin wrote: > I incorporated some changes from Lloyd's patch and committed it to CVS. > Basically if a project sets CMAKE_ALLOW_LOOSE_LOOP_CONSTRUCTS on then you > can leave off the arguments for the endif endwhile, else and endforeach > commands

Re: [CMake] a backwards compatible language simplification

2006-05-18 Thread Gaetan Lehmann
On Thursday 18 May 2006 19:56, Ken Martin wrote: > I incorporated some changes from Lloyd's patch and committed it to CVS. > Basically if a project sets CMAKE_ALLOW_LOOSE_LOOP_CONSTRUCTS on then you > can leave off the arguments for the endif endwhile, else and endforeach > commands. For example: >

RE: [CMake] a backwards compatible language simplification

2006-05-18 Thread Ken Martin
I incorporated some changes from Lloyd's patch and committed it to CVS. Basically if a project sets CMAKE_ALLOW_LOOSE_LOOP_CONSTRUCTS on then you can leave off the arguments for the endif endwhile, else and endforeach commands. For example: if (FOO AND BAR) else () endif () The parenthesis are st

Re: [CMake] a backwards compatible language simplification

2006-05-11 Thread Lloyd Hilaiel
>Personally I like the extra text but I certainly >understand how it might drive some folks batty. I understand your side too. I particularly like this change because it's backwards compatible and allows both preferences to co-exist. >But to answer the meat of your question I do not think it can

RE: [CMake] a backwards compatible language simplification

2006-05-11 Thread Ken Martin
> Having spent all day hacking a massive project using cmake, I wonder... > > could this > > FOREACH (foo ${foolist}) > IF (${foo} STREQUAL "bar") > ... > ELSE (${foo} STREQUAL "bar") > ... > ENDIF (${foo} STREQUAL "bar") > ENDFOREACH (foo ${foolist}) > > change to this: > > FOREA

[CMake] a backwards compatible language simplification

2006-05-10 Thread Lloyd Hilaiel
Having spent all day hacking a massive project using cmake, I wonder... could this FOREACH (foo ${foolist}) IF (${foo} STREQUAL "bar") ... ELSE (${foo} STREQUAL "bar") ... ENDIF (${foo} STREQUAL "bar") ENDFOREACH (foo ${foolist}) change to this: FOREACH (foo ${foolist}) I