On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Johannes Zarl johannes.z...@jku.at wrote:
On Thursday, 17. October 2013, 07:12:51, Clark WANG wrote:
When I'm using CMake more and more I find it's not a real serious
language. It's so tricky.
I can see why you are frustrated. I don't think it's all bad
On Thursday, 17. October 2013, 07:12:51, Clark WANG wrote:
When I'm using CMake more and more I find it's not a real serious
language. It's so tricky.
I can see why you are frustrated. I don't think it's all bad though. Hopefully
CMake3 will be used for some language cleanups at the expense of
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Johannes Zarl johannes.z...@jku.at wrote:
On Monday, 14. October 2013, 19:07:06, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
The IN LISTS signature of foreach seems to do additional list
splitting, leading to (foo;bar baz) appearing as 3 elements.
Accessing the ARGV array by
On Monday, 14. October 2013, 19:07:06, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
The IN LISTS signature of foreach seems to do additional list
splitting, leading to (foo;bar baz) appearing as 3 elements.
Accessing the ARGV array by the positional indices (e.g. ${ARGV0})
prevents the splitting.
Really?
On 2013-10-09 07:44, Johannes Zarl wrote:
I guess you search for something like this:
function(info)
set(msg)
foreach(i RANGE ${ARGC})
set(msg ${msg}${ARGV${i}})
endforeach()
message(STATUS [info] ${msg})
endfunction()
message(Foo:bar;baz space FOO)
I guess you search for something like this:
function(info)
set(msg)
foreach(i RANGE ${ARGC})
set(msg ${msg}${ARGV${i}})
endforeach()
message(STATUS [info] ${msg})
endfunction()
message(Foo:bar;baz space FOO)
info(Foo:bar;baz space FOO)
message(two words)
info(two words)
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Johannes Zarl johannes.z...@jku.at wrote:
I guess you search for something like this:
function(info)
set(msg)
foreach(i RANGE ${ARGC})
set(msg ${msg}${ARGV${i}})
endforeach()
message(STATUS [info] ${msg})
endfunction()
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Matthew Woehlke matthew.woeh...@kitware.com
wrote:
On 2013-09-27 04:18, Clark WANG wrote:
I'm trying to write some MESSAGE() wrappers like info(), warning(),
fatal(), etc which may be a bit easier to use. But I failed to simulate
the
correct MESSAGE()
On 2013-09-27 04:18, Clark WANG wrote:
I'm trying to write some MESSAGE() wrappers like info(), warning(),
fatal(), etc which may be a bit easier to use. But I failed to simulate the
correct MESSAGE() behavior no matter I use MACRO or FUNCTION. For example:
[snip]
FUNCTION vs MACRO shouldn't
I'm trying to write some MESSAGE() wrappers like info(), warning(),
fatal(), etc which may be a bit easier to use. But I failed to simulate the
correct MESSAGE() behavior no matter I use MACRO or FUNCTION. For example:
MACRO(info_mac_1)
message([MACRO 1] ${ARGV})
ENDMACRO()
10 matches
Mail list logo
