On Monday 26 July 2010, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Michael Jackson > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Because it may horrendously interfere with my current established > > workflows > > Why? > > > but I would be open to trying this out. The main issue I can think of is > > the whole release/debug versions of libraries clobbering each other > > during the build. This would force an updated policy for the decorating > > of > > library/executable names or generating sub folders for each type of build > > configuration. > > Doesn't Code Blocks have a convention like this already?
Maybe/probably CodeBlocks supports this when using native project files, i.e. not project files for already existing makefiles (this is what cmake generates). The way it is now (project files + makefiles) is an order of magnitude less implementation and maintainance work than a native C::B generator. But if somebody steps up, implements one and maintains it (i.e. makes sure all tests always succeed), I don't see a reason why such a generator would not be accepted and replace the current one. Alex _______________________________________________ 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://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
