Brad King wrote: >> Allowing them simplifies the boost case I'm sure. >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.cmake.devel/3615/focus=5247 >> >> Also as the existing code (for computing the link closure) handles >> cycles, it might be easier to refactor it and keep the cycle handling. > > Actually, that is a killer argument for explicit interfaces instead of > interfaces implied by linking.
I don't think it is. I added a commit to my wip-target-interface branch (Make cycles in target properties ignored, not an error) which makes it not an error to have cycles in INCLUDE_DIRECTORIES transitive resolution as it already is in my branch. The logic for it is probably similar to what it would be for USE_INTERFACES (exit loops and continue outside of it). Given that the cycle resolution is not dependent on using USE_INTERFACES, I don't think that's a killer argument in favor of that new property. 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
