Does the ability to disable the check at a global and/or per call level satisfy their requirements?
V/R, William On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Bill Deegan <[email protected]> wrote: > William, > > I've seen users with source and/or target as None. > Usually they want to force an item to always build, or they don't > understand that they are actually producing a file (or files) worthy of > being the "target", or that they should/can create a token file for this > purpose. > > So I guess your suggested change (which I think would be helpful for many) > would affect them. > > -Bill > > On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 11:37 AM, William Blevins <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Krew, >> >> It seems that the issue of having dependencies of NoneType.None is rather >> common and can be difficult to track down from personal experience. I think >> we should consider adding code that throws an exception if NoneType.None is >> added via env operations like Append, AppendUnique, Prepend, etc. >> >> For backwards compatibility reasons were someone wants NoneType.None, we >> could have both a global check disable and/or an optional parameter to >> disable checks. >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> V/R, >> William >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Scons-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Scons-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
