for modules?
Alternately, how about a policy requiring modules to include any
modules that deliver the needed functionality, instead of gratuitously
reinventing the wheel? I'm sure we agree that as far as the modules
go, we'd like to maintain fewer wheels.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
cmake with non-cmake libraries?
ADD_CUSTOM_COMMAND is typically the drill. Like, you could just run
whatever its native build is and feed it any needed arguments. That's
pretty easy.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http
too lazy to write this up on
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake:VariablesListsStrings
I think because I perceive this wiki page as a bit buried in the shuffle.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman
. I'll let Martin
comment on the questions I've raised.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
On Jan 15, 2008 7:04 PM, Alexander Neundorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Brandon Van Every wrote:
I am still too lazy to write this up on
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake:VariablesListsStrings
I think because I perceive this wiki page as a bit buried in the shuffle
upon layer of
macro stuff. CMake is definitely better integrated than the Automake
toolchain. I would encourage Martin to help with further CMake
integrations and improvements.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http
.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
On Jan 14, 2008 9:01 AM, Bill Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Van Every wrote:
On Jan 13, 2008 10:04 PM, Bill Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many people will run CMake from a GUI and will not be giving a
-f flag. With the patch there would be no way to build a project via
one
On Jan 14, 2008 12:16 PM, Bill Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Van Every wrote:
Example: I have a legacy handwritten GMake client.mk that acquires the
build tree from CVS before the main Autoconf generated Makefile is
run. The tree is grabbed from CVS and built by typing make
assumption?
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
On Jan 14, 2008 6:55 PM, Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 7:18 PM, Brandon Van Every wrote:
I just filed bug http://cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=6241 , FindPerlLibs
should use FindPerl. My assumption is that if FIND_PROGRAM is run
twice with the same
that will spit out
their input and output variables in a document format?
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
* more than once in a find module. The first one
that finds it will stop the searching.
Ok.
This is all documented in the find_* commands.
I don't think the docs are entirely clear about different invocations
of FIND_PROGRAM that use the same variable.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
. Or a slight wordsmithing would help. I will provide that
when I'm more alert.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
to convert to CMake. So it would be good if
we give them the kinds of things they expect, to the degree that it's
easy for us to do so. I think in this case -f is quite easy.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http
in the same directories.
Many have names ending in *.mk. The main Makefile is generated by
Autoconf, and the *.mk files seem to be used as non-Autoconf
subroutines.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman
Especially in the eyes of the Autoconf + GMake crowd, whom we'd like
to convert. Do you have a serious objection to CMake having a -f
flag?
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
now. Generally, such files are a case of CMake
invoking CMake.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
. You could
execute a CMake script containing CMake commands using COMMAND
${CMAKE_COMMAND} -P myscript.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
and CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR.
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_Useful_Variables
You could also use PROJECT_BINARY_DIR or MyProjectName_BINARY_DIR.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
for the linking to work.
Do you have a TARGET_LINK_LIBRARIES command for app, so that lib will be linked?
BTW if I do
cmake @ the src level then everything works fine.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http
and edit the wiki.
Mozilla is the study for Mercurial. It's still early days for them,
they're in transition from CVS. I suggest watching them, to see what
benefits they gain.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http
is a Mercurial shop now.
I haven't seen much mention of
Darcs except for the 'dreaded exponential merge problem' and being
written in Haskell making it harder to port.
My $0.02 is Darcs is easy to use.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake
. Every dependency has to be grabbed by
hand.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
each other and not worry about merges.
Thus, it is probably a given that CMake
will always use a centralized repository.
You haven't even begun to prove a thus. What is so important about
being centralized?
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake
.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
On Jan 3, 2008 12:06 PM, Gregory Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand what you mean but fixing the path is a bit over my head.
How do I fix the path?
Why don't you just reinstall the compiler?
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing
On Jan 3, 2008 12:31 PM, Gregory Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 12:22 -0500, Brandon Van Every wrote:
On Jan 3, 2008 12:06 PM, Gregory Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand what you mean but fixing the path is a bit over my head.
How do I fix the path
On Jan 2, 2008 10:00 AM, Christian Convey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 2, 2008 9:15 AM, Alexander Neundorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 31 December 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote:
I would assume that Linux tool ports just use the PowerPC core.
Getting the 8 SPE cores
paradigm should look like.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
the value
of _BUILD_MODULE_ into BUILD_MODULE.
You want either TRY_COMPILE or TRY_RUN.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
On Dec 28, 2007 1:33 PM, Rodolfo Lima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Van Every escreveu:
Too cumbersome? Surely you jest. What's a long-winded list of
patterns in terms of your development time? Two minutes tops?
Oh well... thanks for teaching me another word: jest, and I'm not being
this. INCLUDE(DIRECTORY ... PATTERN blah ...) should
work fine without an EXCLUDE
and I've already tried without success.
If you're using CMake 2.4.7 and can reproduce that with a simple test
case, it's a bug. File it.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake
On Dec 28, 2007 4:38 PM, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 2:51 PM, Rodolfo Lima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Cole escreveu:
Can't you use PATTERN without the EXCLUDE to achieve this?
Unfortunately no. Documentation doesn't say anything about it
What version
On Dec 28, 2007 4:33 PM, Mike Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
INSTALL(DIRECTORY src/
DESTINATION include/MXADataModel
REGEX .*\\.h$
)
which I think should work. So what am I doing wrong?
The regex is correct. What happens if you use src instead of src/ ?
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
in some other way. Anyways it's a bug. Write a trivial reproducer
and file it.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
to be installed, so the current behaviour is correct, albeit not
ideal.
No, it's bugged.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
it, with a concrete example,
Kitware will never be convinced that any better language is needed.
So I'm saying, quit talking about how Lua or some other language is
supposed to be better, and find something that proves it would be
better.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
holidays if
anyone wants to throw them in there. :-)
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
what is placed where, they just want
their app to work as Bill has stated.
If checkboxes to set / not set the path are too complicated, then the
installer can issue a warning message that the user needs to set the
path manually.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
not do this sort of thing on Macs?
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
myscript . Of course, this isn't going to configure anything. :-)
Are you just trying to perform text substitutions or something?
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
execute_process.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
On Dec 22, 2007 4:24 PM, Bill Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still don't see the reason for the strong resistance to using an
installer program. Many Apple products including Xcode use one.
Clearly a cultural issue. You're running afoul of Mac native
culture as opposed to cross-platform
:)
Before you switch to svn please use git. It's much better than the pain of cvs
or svn.
Mozilla is migrating to Mercurial. They rejected git; I forget why.
It's early days for peer-to-peer source control, but based on my Darcs
experience, in principle I'm a fan.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
On Dec 22, 2007 6:20 PM, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In that world view, you'd add first run invokes path configuration
because it gives native MacOS bigots a warm squishy feeling. Then
they're singing the praises of CMake instead of bitching and moaning
about it.
The first
.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
projects built by default. Test cases
are another example.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
pretty far, and PCRE is coming.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
.2C_once_for_shared_and_once_for_static.3F.21__I_don.27t_like_that.21
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
On Dec 19, 2007 10:47 AM, Joël Schaerer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have read this FAQ entry, but it doesn't seem to adress my issue at all...
Did you read http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=5155 ?
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
On Dec 18, 2007 8:32 PM, Rodolfo Lima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Van Every escreveu:
We would have to guarantee that version 2.4.7 executes correctly every
script made up till now.
I don't see how we could.
Well, Kitware has always been concerned with backward compatibility, so
On Dec 19, 2007 1:52 AM, Gonzalo Garramuño [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, lua runs 10 times faster than the cmake language does, but that's
a different story.
So what's the story? Can you substantiate that?
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake
coming from the Autoconf
world to get enough of a warm squishy feeling that they stick with
CMake. Over time they learn how to use CMake properly, using
CMakeSetup / CCMake, and forget their command line ways.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing
On Dec 18, 2007 9:50 PM, Rodolfo Lima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a way to call a dynamically created macro name?
You could use a macro to generate a CMake script containing a macro,
and then call that script. :-)
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
be happy to see your comments on this in the bug report. It's not
going to get action unless someone other than myself lights a match
under the issue.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo
came up
with a hack to find CMake's objects and reuse them, so that the user
of a static library would not have to add additional link flags. In
particular, I wanted the user to be able to specify -lchicken, and not
have to specify -lchicken -lpcre.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
to
implement. Where's the harm in making it easy for the user to find
the object files?
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
, it was an implementation detail of Chicken
that they should never have to think about.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
On Dec 19, 2007 4:24 PM, David Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/19/07, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...an easy feature to
implement...
So easy to implement that the attached patch was 0 bytes...?
Bill's comments at http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=5155 about
On Dec 19, 2007 12:47 PM, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Van Every escreveu:
You could use a macro to generate a CMake script containing a macro,
and then call that script. :-)
Nice... :)
In fact, it turns out you can use an include() to cause it to exist
there. It could just be an intermediate part of your source
tree. Perhaps the CMakeLists.txt in that subdirectory merely contains
more ADD_SUBDIRECTORY commands.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman
On Dec 19, 2007 6:04 PM, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 12:47 PM, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Van Every escreveu:
You could use a macro to generate a CMake script containing a macro,
and then call that script. :-)
Nice
with it? If
not, at least it'll teach me what regexes can't do, computationally
speaking. But who knows, maybe anything that has PCRE could turn into
a metaprogramming language translator. It would be really slick from
a portability and maintenance standpoint.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
On Dec 19, 2007 7:32 PM, David Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where are these 10 lines?
In the bug tracker, conspiciously above Bill's comments. They've been
there for 6 months.
http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=5155
On 12/19/07, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 19
On Dec 18, 2007 2:21 AM, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reading http://blog.aslakhellesoy.com/tags/jruby/ I get the impression
that the Ruby + Java universe has a *lot* of developers banging on
things.
Maybe it wouldn't all be good! :-) Maybe too many cooks spoil the
broth
be, nothing.
Dunno there. I'm not seeing any downside to PCRE, so long as it's
disambiguated from CMake's current regexes.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
and well, but if the pace of your RD is glacial, the
rest of the open source industry isn't going to sit around waiting for
your Windows-killing software.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo
wonder if in some instances the opposite would be needed,
include(Ancient) ! :-) Something that either suppresses appeals to
modernity, or warns vehemently against them.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http
to
set_properties(GLOBAL PROPERTIES REQUIRE_BOOL TRUE) and get rid of the
string pollution. I'm happy, the backwards compatible crowd is happy.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
, so sticking with like 90% of all use cases would
be good enough, IMHO.
Exactly. Anything could happen is a lot of fretting about nothing.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
On Dec 18, 2007 1:06 PM, James Bigler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Van Every wrote:
include(Modern) would turn on improvements that are
clearly desirable but break backwards compatibility.
Heh, I wonder if in some instances the opposite would be needed,
include(Ancient
with it.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
On Dec 18, 2007 1:44 PM, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Van Every wrote:
How about include(ForwardsCompatibility). That would make the intent
really clear.
IMHO a better solution would be to specify which CMAKE version is
expected to parse the CMakeFiles.txt
On Dec 18, 2007 1:55 PM, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Van Every wrote:
I thought REMOVE_RECURSE was a straightforward unconditional nuke. I
don't see that cleanliness has anything to do with it.
Well, if I want to clean (remove) a directory, I'd expect
On Dec 18, 2007 2:36 PM, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Van Every wrote:
Hint: there's already the
cmake_minimum_required command (at least in cmake-cvs, that is)...
cmake_minimum_required has been around for awhile now. It does not
solve the problem.
Why
during build configuration, but IMHO it should be
FILE(REMOVE_RECURSE ...) so that 'make clean' removes any directories
specified with CMAKE_ADDITIONAL_CLEAN_FILES property.
Sounds like a bug. File a reproducer in the bug tracker.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
really need is a way to dump that information out of the bug
tracker and display it on a webpage. Would this be as simple as
defining a particular Mantis view, and then making a wiki page about
using Mantis to examine that view?
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
do it for new scripts, but
old scripts are what they are. Also, I don't necessarily want my
script to be limited to CMake's behavior when I wrote it.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo
On Dec 18, 2007 6:43 PM, Rodolfo Lima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Van Every escreveu:
But old scripts don't do that. One could do it for new scripts, but
old scripts are what they are. Also, I don't necessarily want my
script to be limited to CMake's behavior when I wrote
On Dec 18, 2007 7:31 PM, Rodolfo Lima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Van Every escreveu:
That would be easy to cope with, no version specification = 2.4.7.
If it actually works under 2.4.7 and doesn't need some other earlier
version to function with.
We would have to guarantee
with SUBDIRS. CMake
2.6.0 will list SUBDIRS in the depreciated section of the
documentation.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
could be moved to
the depreciated section of the docs, but its behavior would remain
unaltered.
CMAKE_*_LIBRARY_POSTFIX could serve the purpose of _d and so forth.
This is parallel with the meaning of CONFIG_POSTFIX in the docs.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
question. Things that CMake can't do are potential strategic
threats. Nicer syntax is not.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
is problematic, as it is a
single character like n. A similar proposal for a NUMBER data type,
and CMAKE_REQUIRE_NUMBER, could be used to eliminate the problem of
the 0.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org
On Dec 17, 2007 9:17 AM, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Equality
comparison would be by boolean class, not the specific boolean value.
The following code succeeds:
set(bool_var ON)
[...]
if(bool_var EQUAL Yes)
# this code is executed
That's not the best example
easier. I had to write a substantial
body of code to do it. If the feature were present, translation would
be much more 1:1 and easier to implement.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo
. In
my case, because I wrote the regex negation operator and other
string handling extensions, I have a pretty good idea what a
PCRE-based regex interface should look like.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http
On Dec 17, 2007 3:00 PM, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Van Every escreveu:
On Dec 17, 2007 2:29 PM, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A workaround would be
computing a hash from the string and using it as a key, but once again,
it'd be a pain
system, and they'll balk the
minute they have to lift a finger to maintain it.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
On Dec 17, 2007 3:33 PM, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Van Every escreveu:
What's so hard about writhing a hash function using only MATH(EXPR
...) ? Geez, once upon a time there were guys who wrote this using
punch cards.
I have a life, I live in Copacabana, Rio
and
tons of jobs listing it as a must have skill. I wonder where Waf
thinks it is, relative to all of that. Happy with the $0 we really
don't have to bother with Windows open source market?
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http
On Dec 16, 2007 2:55 PM, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 1:54 PM, Alexander Neundorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 16 December 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote:
Meanwhile I just keep expanding my search radius, asking various build
system communities the OO
, will depend upon Ruby living
symbiotically with other languages that do need to be compiled (C/C++,
Java, C#).
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
?
The Java universe has a lot of JVM-based scripting languages. I'm
trying to figure out whether any are more popular than the others.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
On Dec 17, 2007 10:32 PM, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The main benefit I see in Groovy, is it paves over all that despicable
XML syntax.
Here's an example of that.
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-10-2004/jw-1004-groovy.html
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
to design and maintain.
I guess you have no fear of a Disruptive Technology biting you in the ass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology
I prefer to keep my eye on the 8-ball.
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ssanty/cgi-bin/eightball.cgi
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
On Dec 17, 2007 11:02 PM, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess you have no fear of a Disruptive Technology biting you in the ass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology
I prefer to keep my eye on the 8-ball.
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ssanty/cgi-bin/eightball.cgi
101 - 200 of 575 matches
Mail list logo
