On 2014-01-28 01:11, Andrew Hundt wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
I didn't look at it yet, but to be optimally useful I would hope that an
implementation of generating doxygen documentation would:
What we have won't be optimally useful, but it is very useful. I
On Jan 24, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Stephen Kelly steve...@gmail.com wrote:
Roger Leigh wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:40:54AM +0100, Stephen Kelly wrote:
Andreas Schuh wrote:
On a side note, just today a co-worker asked me why the compiler cannot
find the header files when they were
On Jan 24, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Stephen Kelly steve...@gmail.com wrote:
There seems to be some mailing list problems going on (maybe Andrew didn't
subscribe before posting... :/ Always subscribe to a mailing list before
posting...), and my reply was rejected.
I had one rejected post
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Andreas Schuh andreas.schuh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jan 23, 2014, at 9:40 AM, Stephen Kelly steve...@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Schuh wrote:
How often have you seen CMake code as the following
add_executable(foo foo.cpp)
?
I see executables with a
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Stephen Kelly steve...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew Hundt wrote:
I'm not well versed with the guts of git but are there any good
ways to do some cleanup?
If you have to ask, the details probably not something worth discussing
here. Adding a commit removing them
On 2014-01-27 14:48, Andrew Hundt wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
Andrew Hundt wrote:
I'm not well versed with the guts of git but are there any good
ways to do some cleanup?
If you have to ask, the details probably not something worth discussing
here. Adding a
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Matthew Woehlke
mw_tr...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
Possibly :-). I'd tend to agree with Stephen that this isn't the best
place to get into a discussion of git history rewriting. But I'll also drop
https://help.github.com/articles/remove-sensitive-data as a
There seems to be some mailing list problems going on (maybe Andrew didn't
subscribe before posting... :/ Always subscribe to a mailing list before
posting...), and my reply was rejected.
Breaking threading to respond.
On 01/23/2014 07:32 PM, Andrew Hundt wrote:
Allow me to rephrase, could
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:40:54AM +0100, Stephen Kelly wrote:
Andreas Schuh wrote:
On a side note, just today a co-worker asked me why the compiler cannot
find the header files when they were provided as additional arguments to
the add_executable command. Indeed this was a reasonable
Roger Leigh wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:40:54AM +0100, Stephen Kelly wrote:
Andreas Schuh wrote:
On a side note, just today a co-worker asked me why the compiler cannot
find the header files when they were provided as additional arguments
to the add_executable command. Indeed this
Andrew Hundt wrote:
Website: http://opensource.andreasschuh.com/cmake-basis/index.html
GitHub: https://github.com/schuhschuh/cmake-basis/
The repo is surprisingly large (67 mb) for something like this. I
consider such large files in a git repo to be bad practice. This is just
the first
Andreas Schuh wrote:
How often have you seen CMake code as the following
add_executable(foo foo.cpp)
?
I see executables with a single source file only in dummy test code, and
even then
add_executable(foo main.cpp)
is more common.
The basis_add_executable supports this use case as
Find one minor correction to my previous post below.
On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:11 PM, Andreas Schuh andreas.schuh...@gmail.com wrote:
For example, in case of Python, you can “wrap” the script and have it act as
both Windows NT Script and Python script by adding the following line at the
top
On Jan 23, 2014, at 9:40 AM, Stephen Kelly steve...@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Schuh wrote:
How often have you seen CMake code as the following
add_executable(foo foo.cpp)
?
I see executables with a single source file only in dummy test code, and
even then
add_executable(foo
On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:11 PM, Andreas Schuh andreas.schuh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 23, 2014, at 9:40 AM, Stephen Kelly steve...@gmail.com wrote:
Another example: You have code for adding scripts as executables. What
are the generic (non-BASIS related) use cases for that?
You can
Andreas Schuh wrote:
Yes, that's what I was referring to. I see why you have it. I'm not
convinced it should be upstreamed.
I guess most people can live with defining a CMake macro for it if they
want to.
I thought it might make sense for unit tests, but something else generally
introduces
Andreas Schuh wrote:
On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:11 PM, Andreas Schuh
andreas.schuh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 23, 2014, at 9:40 AM, Stephen Kelly
steve...@gmail.com wrote:
Another example: You have code for adding scripts as executables. What
are the generic (non-BASIS related) use cases
On Jan 23, 2014, at 4:17 PM, Stephen Kelly steve...@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Schuh wrote:
On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:11 PM, Andreas Schuh
andreas.schuh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 23, 2014, at 9:40 AM, Stephen Kelly
steve...@gmail.com wrote:
Another example: You have code for adding
On 21 January 2014 19:49, Andrew Hundt athu...@gmail.com wrote:
CMake BASIS is a set of utilities and standards created with the goal of
making CMake projects and libraries very easy to create, share, and reuse.
It also integrates a lot of useful new CMake functionality such as
documentation
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Mateusz Łoskot mate...@loskot.net wrote:
Andrew, this looks very interesting.
Thanks!
(I'm tired of writing the same
boilerplate :-))
Yeah it seemed like every new library I wrote had the same boilerplate so
when I found this project I jumped on and
On Tuesday 21 January 2014, Andrew Hundt wrote:
CMake BASIS is a set of utilities and standards created with the goal of
making CMake projects and libraries very easy to create, share, and reuse.
this reminds me a bit of automake...
autoconf alone was kind of ok, then automake was added to
Andrew Hundt wrote:
CMake BASIS is a set of utilities and standards created with the goal of
making CMake projects and libraries very easy to create, share, and reuse.
Hello,
There seems to be several years of development behind this already. Is it
newly public, or newly publicized? I've
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Stephen Kelly steve...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew Hundt wrote:
CMake BASIS is a set of utilities and standards created with the goal of
making CMake projects and libraries very easy to create, share, and
reuse.
Hello,
There seems to be several years of
Hi Steve and all,
On Jan 23, 2014, at 12:47 AM, Andrew Hundt athu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Stephen Kelly steve...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew Hundt wrote:
CMake BASIS is a set of utilities and standards created with the goal of
making CMake projects and
CMake BASIS is a set of utilities and standards created with the goal of
making CMake projects and libraries very easy to create, share, and reuse.
It also integrates a lot of useful new CMake functionality such as
documentation
tools and automated packaging that a CMake user would otherwise have
25 matches
Mail list logo
