Brandon Van Every wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, backwards compatibility is something we take very seriously. If
someone picks CMake as a build tool, we have to respect that choice and
try our best not to break that project. There are very large projects
that have many lines of CMake code in them. People have put a great
deal of effort into creating those files. If they don't have the time
to re-write in a new language, I don't blame them.
This is why I think an automated translation tool, say from CMake
script --> Lua, is essential to a migration strategy.
I also won't try to
force them to do it, by obsoleting the current language.
I think if the automated translation tool had proven itself for a
couple of years, it would be perfectly reasonable to force people to
move on. So there is still that 2 year window of supporting 2
languages.
So, we might have two official languages someday, but no more than that.
I have yet to see a auto-translate tool that works 100%. I do not
believe that they exist. I guess there is f2c, but I am sure there are
corner cases that fails on. To all using the current CMake language,
have no fear, it will be supported in the future.
-Bill
_______________________________________________
CMake mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
