On Monday 01 August 2011, Brad King wrote: > On 07/31/2011 04:09 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > I'm not sure which syntax I like better. The one with the macro feels > > more high-level, but maybe hides too much what is actually going on > > (which is not much). The one where the user must use configure_file() > > directly feels more low-level, but doesn't try to make a secret of > > what's going on, which may be better to encourage users to write their > > own version files. > > > > Which one would you prefer ? > > I'll add tests for the one we decide to use. > > I like the macro better. It will allow us to extend the capabilities later > while retaining compatibility. If we let people configure the file > directly then if we add more fields that need replacement in the future > then old versions may stop working because there are no defaults for new > fields.
I pushed and merged now a 3rd branch "WriteConfigVersionFile_2TemplateFiles" which does both: it provides the macro, and the macro uses one of the two template files (which are also mentioned in the documentation). So these template files stay simple and can easily be used as starting point for more sophisticated ones. Alex _______________________________________________ cmake-developers mailing list cmake-developers@cmake.org http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
