Brandon Van Every escreveu:
Certain CMake people want to *say* it was conclusive, so that the issue will go away, but it wasn't conclusive. In particular, I have to note the self-selecting nature of the CMake community. If you stick around and duke it out with CMake, there's a pretty good chance you don't think "completeness" in a build language is important. That's why I started asking around in other build system communities, to see what they think is important. Nothing conclusive or enlightening to report so far.
I didn't quite get what you mean here about 'self-selecting nature of CMake community' (sorry, English language barrier).
Ken showed proof of concept for Lua. "It's too hard" would be a completely silly argument at this point.
And for what I saw, its implementation could be better (no unpack, etc...).
We do, however, have new scope and function operators in CVS CMake. So we should all play with those for awhile before revisiting the Lua issue, I think.
That's the point. I even don't know if there's an agreement on the fact that cmake script is a good script or not. It seems it isn't because something basic as scoped variables got implemented recently, etc. Is it feasible to wait for the need of other obvious features (like return values from functions, pcre, etc..)? I mean, as time progresses, it becomes more and more difficult to change root paradigms (like the script language). So if cmake script is incomplete, why not change it to something more complete?
You said about function operators... can we now return values from functions and do something like: message(string(TOUPPER "cmake"))? If we do, one less item in my wishlist :)
Regards, rod _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list [email protected] http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
