Stephen Kelly wrote: > I haven't tried to analyse how much of the complexity is due to whether > target_use_targets or target_link_libraries is used. I think the harder > parts of this topic so far have been related to exports. Like I said > though, I haven't analysed how much of the exports complexity comes from > the use of tll().
I've split out the part of the commit that changes tll(), and I think the complexity remains in the part that would be essential even with a new command. If target_link_libraries never sets the new properties (LINK_LIBRARIES and INTERFACE_LINK_LIBRARIES), the question in the 'link implementation is link interface' case remains: Should the exported link interface be populated by iface.Libraries (as set by tll()), or by the LINK_LIBRARIES property (as populated by a new command). We can't really just check if LINK_LIBRARIES exists and use it if so. That would mean that if the user starts with this: target_link_libraries(foo bar) bar will be in the link interface when exported. If they then add a line: target_link_libraries(foo bar) target_use_targets(foo bing) bar will no longer be in the link interface when exported. Only bing will be. I think that would be even more complex for the user, and probably even more complex for us to implement and review, emit appropriate warnings etc. Even if we have a policy for when people use the old and new command with the same foo, people will use both tll() and the new command in the same project (with different targets), and that will be confusing for them. That's also a reason not to add a new command, I think. Thanks, Steve. -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
