2008/11/21 Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 2008-11-20, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> target-group is-a target. A "plain target" is a target as opposed to >>> a target-group. > >> Since I have conceptualized them in my head as something different >> than targets, I forget that implementation-wise they remain targets. > > Not only implementation-wise, also in my head, conceptually. > >> I actually think it would be better if the code made them distinct >> classes, possibly extracting an interface for the perform and >> dependency getting parts, but that's a different story. From the >> user and documentation perspective, the fact that a target-group is >> a target under the cover should be de-emphasized IMHO. > > I wonder what sort of difference between target and target-group > people see, I don't seem to get it, sorry. > > Stefan >
I'm not sure exactely of what sort of difference I see (normal because we didn't manage to define it), but here my "feeling" about the difference : - There is a difference of granularity. - Between targets, you have a relations of prerequisites. A target depends on things being produced by other target (that the dependee target knows). - Between targets and target-group, you have an idea of 'PartOf' relationship (with only the part having knowledge of its group). -- Gilles Scokart --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
