Re: [CMake] CMake and CORBA

ve build systems associated with them (i.e. .sln files.) Also MSVC is "weird," so a lot of special work is done for it (and for lookalike compilers.) Now, is CMake already set up to detect mico-c++? Don't know; I bet not. But it would be easy enough for you to implem

Re: [CMake] Setting environment variables for custom targets

On Nov 15, 2007 1:53 PM, Josef Karthauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf > > Of Brandon Van Every > > Sent: 15 November 2007 14:17 > > To: cmake@cmake.org

Re: [CMake] Applying command to source files

On Nov 15, 2007 3:04 PM, Eric Noulard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I currently lack a command which could give me > all sources files in a directory. FILE(GLOB ... ? Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://w

Re: [CMake] Correct way to add definitions

7;t you? Variables are propagated to subdirectories, and I imagine definitions are also. Perhaps you want to put your ADD_SUBDIRECTORY statement earlier, to prevent propagation of -D_BUILD_DLL. Perhaps you want the REMOVE_DEFINITIONS command? Cheers, Brandon Van Every

Re: [CMake] Correct way to add definitions

curve. Part of the reason I answer people's questions, even if they may at times tend towards basic issues, is to keep myself "in shape" for things I'm going to need to do at a later time. Conversely, I don't tend to bother with problems I think I'm unlikely to run in

Re: [CMake] setting other compile flag for 1 source file

Doesn't GCC have #pragma operators to control this from within the file? MSVC does. Cheers, Brandon Van Every On Nov 18, 2007 10:32 AM, Cees Wesseling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On a large project I am running into a possible optimization bug in gcc. > I naile

Re: [CMake] Default search paths for FIND_PATH

ch paths, they are whatever the OS + user chose to set. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] Add search paths for FIND_PACKAGE ?

-NOTFOUND is a much better result than "found weird library that user forgot about that isn't even compiled for the correct runtime." Realize, Windows is the platform you're probably looking for this stuff. Keeping MSVC, Cygwin, and MinGW build environments separate

Re: [CMake] Add search paths for FIND_PACKAGE ?

he other hand, curl really is installed in "curl.h" and "curl/curl.h" form on various systems, then I agree that CMake should not hardwire the directory. So which is it? Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] Win32: unable to find Curl library with FIND_LIBRARY

and they're not responsible for what individuals do. But it strikes me as being pretty dumb. Maybe you should get on the curl mailing lists and see if you can wrangle some consistency out of them. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing

Re: [CMake] QtDialog isn't installed?

been any flaps over this. Meanwhile, here's their license overview. http://trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] QtDialog isn't installed?

On Nov 20, 2007 11:18 AM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 20, 2007 8:36 AM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hendrik Sattler wrote: > > > > >> Anyway, the GPL stuff still stands. > > > > > > Why don&#x

Re: [CMake] QtDialog isn't installed?

On Nov 20, 2007 12:52 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 20 November 2007 10:45:56 am Mike Jackson wrote: > > On Nov 20, 2007 12:34 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 20, 2007 11:18 AM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&

Re: [CMake] QtDialog isn't installed?

nd does something with it, could get themselves in trouble by not fulfilling the corporate governance conditions of the Qt GPL Exception. But that's really their problem. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] QtDialog isn't installed?

On Nov 20, 2007 2:41 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think in the real world, Kitware can distribute QtDialog under > CMake's license, and Linux distro gatekeepers won't object. I would suggest making clear reference to the exception in the QtDialog

Re: [CMake] QtDialog isn't installed?

On Nov 20, 2007 2:59 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 20, 2007 2:41 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think in the real world, Kitware can distribute QtDialog under > > CMake's license, and Linux distro gatekee

Re: [CMake] Add search paths for FIND_PACKAGE ?

lexibility is how all software packages do things. Quite a lot of software packages have standard directory conventions for #include files. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] CMake Error: Could not get source file entry for ...

piece of code, i.e. a trivial project using doxygen? Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] QtDialog isn't installed?

On Nov 20, 2007 6:47 PM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brandon Van Every wrote: > > On Nov 20, 2007 2:59 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Nov 20, 2007 2:41 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I

Re: [CMake] QtDialog isn't installed?

t of requirements than the GPL: the various Linux distro policies. The Qt GPL Exception is exactly the legal framework needed. Kitware is exactly the kind of open source company that Trolltech is trying to make life easier for. Cheers, Brandon Van Every

Re: [CMake] SUBDIRS command

BTW please don't use SUBDIRS, use ADD_SUBDIRECTORY. SUBDIRS is archaic, has slightly different behavior, and is officially depreciated in the upcoming CMake 2.6. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmak

Re: [CMake] Using gmake with windows CL compiler?

of slashes, etc. I'd > appreciate hearing from anyone who has got this working. The mailing list archives say don't use Cygwin gmake for this. http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/2006-August/010617.html Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMa

Re: [CMake] Get CMAKE to use ksh instead of bash

_CUSTOM_TARGET. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] QtDialog isn't installed?

and zlib/libpng. Both are GPL-compatible licenses. > PS: no, I don't actually care for the GPL but I care about cmake > staying in Debian main. It's solved. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] Re: CMake Error: Could not get source file entry for ...

n. i.e. please cut & paste exact command lines and the full output. Also, please start "from the top, cleanly" if you do something to improve the situation. I can bootstrap on Cygwin without any problems. I'll try on Linux w

Re: [CMake] VS2005 emitter and /vmg compiler option: bug?

real world is, once you've learned this stuff you tend to not care anymore. It's the classic programmer vs. documenter dilemma. That said, I'm adding a FAQ entry about this. Is all this written up nicely in the "Mastering CMake" book? I've never read it. I lear

Re: [CMake] Using gmake with windows CL compiler?

x27;t work in one of your CMake environments, using a different one is a common tactic until you figure out what's going on. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] Changing compiler at runtime

onfigurations. It would be 10 lines in your favorite scripting language. Could invoke with "cmake -P mybuildscript" if you don't mind CMake script and don't want another language dependency. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] DLL import/export flag differentiation

rder of appearance in CMakeLists.txt does matter. You'd do: ADD_DEFINITIONS, ADD_LIBRARY, REMOVE_DEFINITIONS, ADD_EXECUTABLE. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] Re: setting other compile flag for 1 source file

wing about GCC and #pragma http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Pragmas.html http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Function-Attributes.html do these help? Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] setting defines using CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS

fter it came up last week. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

uot; command. sources = { "simpleLib.cxx", "simpleCLib.c", "simpleWe.cpp" } cm_add_library ("simpleLib", "STATIC", unpack(sources)); Would this be necessary / paradigmatic in Lua? In CMake I just use lists. Cheers, Brandon Van

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

the rest of the world objects to having to learn CMake script. And at present, I think there are a lot more techies who don't use CMake than do use CMake. At present I'm open to the possibility of Lua. I don't have to have it. Everything on my list of objections could be solved

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

tem that the language should handle them gracefully. I don't know enough about Lua to know whether this is natural in it. It's definitely not natural in C++ and I wouldn't choose C++ for specifying a build system. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___

[CMake] Re: [Dart] Dart2 issue and future

"will happen in 2001," which is exceedingly unprofessional marketing. I'm sure there are other things I recommended that weren't done. Oh well, not my problem. If Dart looks like Deathware than so be it. Cheers, Brandon Van Every > 2) It would be a good idea to open a

[CMake] Re: [Dart] Dart2 issue and future

Bah, wrong mailing list, sorry. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

On Nov 26, 2007 3:55 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I noticed the "unpack" command. > > sources = { > "simpleLib.cxx", > "simpleCLib.c", > "simpleWe.cpp" > } > > cm_add_library ("simpleLi

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

On Nov 27, 2007 2:32 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 26, 2007 3:55 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I noticed the "unpack" command. > > > > sources = { > > "simpleLib.cxx", > &

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

uild tools have a history of making strings easy at the expense of other programming constructs. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

build system, to get an idea just how many quotes and unpack() statements I'd likely be typing. Googling... Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

essions into the code being produced. Consequently, upgrading is an expensive proposition that many sites can't undertake just because a new tool like SCons might require it. When faced with that sort of choice, it's much less risky and expensive for them to just wal

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

. I wonder if SCons loses Pythonistas because it uses an old Python? Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

the point? > I would say to most > outsiders, seeing Lua 5 used instead of Lua 6 is still a much less > significant deal than users having to worry about learning CMake > script and also dealing with their own version changes (1.8 vs 2.0 vs > 2.2 vs 2.4 etc). I've been around since 2.2. CMake *script* hasn't changed much since then, just the available functions. Ok, my current opinion is straight Lua ain't quite good enough. Can we turn it into 95% Lua that's 100% CMake? Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

e language bugs - popularity boost for 5 years - some advanced programming constructs gained Anyone want to add to this? Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

On Nov 28, 2007 1:16 AM, Sebastien BARRE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 11/28/2007 01:06 AM, Brandon Van Every wrote: > >On Nov 28, 2007 12:56 AM, George Neill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Maybe I am missing the obvious, but I am trying to unde

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

On Nov 28, 2007 1:48 AM, George Neill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/28/07, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - better scoping > > - higher quality, outsourced documentation > > - outsource core language bugs > > - popularity boost for

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

ons, so I'm not understanding what you're asking. I assumed that Kitware is ready to act when they have time to do so. Did you miss that discussion? Did it leave you with a bunch of unresolved questions? If so, I'd suggest going back into the archive and responding to specif

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

ng, we're not going to do it for them. We just have to parse the keywords like STATIC, and pay attention to fixed positions at the beginning of an argument list. In fact, come to think of it, "if it's a CMake reserved function, hand it off to a special argument processor," would solve much of the problem. Then you're just down to changing Lua table constructors, so that they don't require quotes. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

On Nov 28, 2007 3:59 AM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For any given CMake function, we know what argument types we expect. > The programmer is responsible for dereferencing, we're not going to do > it for them. We just have to parse the keywor

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

reference to external Perl, Python, or Ruby code. People wouldn't have much need for those if CMake's language features were sufficient. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

words "lexical scoping." Most baffling since it's the subject line. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

On Nov 28, 2007 3:20 AM, E. Wing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd also like a shorter way to dereference a table than > > unpack(table). > > Seriously, this is a total non-issue and unpack is totally unnecessary. The argument evaluation model matters

Re: [CMake] installing generated files

refix rootlist) SET(outlist) FOREACH(root ${${rootlist}}) LIST(APPEND outlist ${prefix}${root}) ENDFOREACH(root) SET(${rootlist} ${outlist}) ENDMACRO(ADD_PREFIX) Cheers, Brandon Van Every On Nov 28, 2007 1:25 AM, Stefan Kögl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > how to instal

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

iable name scope has merit, but I will let others debate the pros and cons of it. Frankly, I see it as a race between the supposed ease of improving the CMake language, and the demonstrated ease of slapping Lua into it. With provisios about whether we really want straight Lua; at present I don'

Re: [CMake] installing generated files

On Nov 28, 2007 6:45 AM, Stefan Kögl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 28. November 2007 10:38:20 schrieb Brandon Van Every: > > You need to know the names of the files that will be generated and > > then INSTALL(FILES ...) > > Typically I just have a hardwir

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

On Nov 28, 2007 1:28 PM, Alexander Neundorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote: > > On Nov 28, 2007 3:17 AM, E. Wing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Right now I think it's just an experiment to see how things migh

Re: [CMake] suppressing the compiler chooser dialog

on that I would > like to set the compiler through cmake script if possible. Is there anyway > to do this? I don't get it. If I pick a compiler via CMakeSetup, I'm telling you what build I want. What do you mean? Cheers, Brandon Van Every _

Re: [CMake] suppressing the compiler chooser dialog

ndows mobile 6 > symbian > etc. I would just send error messages for what I don't support. I would not try to dumb it down. You could inform the user what you actually support with 1 error dialog box, end of problem. Cheers, Brandon Van Every __

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

On Nov 29, 2007 2:18 AM, Jesper Eskilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Brandon Van Every wrote: > > On Nov 28, 2007 2:47 AM, Pau Garcia i Quiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Talking about Ruby, could someone please paste his wishlist about > >

Re: [CMake] CMake with Lua Experiment

On Nov 29, 2007 12:37 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We all have our points of view about how important various > things are. Alexander has gone on record as anti-complexity; he > Considers Programming Harmful in a build system. I don't agree with >

Re: [CMake] Regular expressions

only want to replace the 1st thing you matched. I want lines to be "properly" matched with anchors. This is a compile option in PCRE. 0005380: REGEX ^ and $ do not match on multi-line http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=5380 Here are some bugs that hopefully just aren't present

Re: [CMake] How to pass a write-parameter to a "MACRO"?

Lua into CMake. Ken has shown proof-of-concept that it's doable, but there's no consensus that it's desirable. Do you feel the documentation of macro() is adequate to explain the formal argument processing, or is more needed? Cheers, Brandon Van Every

Re: [CMake] Find executable a test it's version

On Dec 2, 2007 5:02 PM, pepone. onrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Any ideas for this task Aren't the CMake docs sufficient to explain this? FIND_PROGRAM... or whatever. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMa

Re: [CMake] Makefile verbose ouput

On Dec 2, 2007 5:06 PM, pepone. onrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello > > I whant to view the commands that are running with out of the arguments , > there are any options for enable this make VERBOSE=1 Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___

Re: [CMake] Using Macro function like

On Dec 3, 2007 5:41 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I invoke the macro by calling it with C2ADA(${LIST_OF_FILES} ADS). > > Is there a possibilty to do what I want by using another command? You want variable arguments. Look in the MACRO docs for ARGC, ARGV, and ARGN. C

Re: [CMake] function and raise_scope commands

ilable in a production CMake. When's the next minor rev due out? Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] problem building CMake from source

the source > code path to ...\CMake\Source. Any ideas what is going on? Thanks. I'd completely throw out your source and binary treees, start your build from scratch, and make sure it's absolutely clean, without PATH interference from other versions of CMake. Cheers, Brandon Van Every

Re: [CMake] SUBSTRING - STRING - shorten a string variable

h If "${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}" contains regex special characters, you'll have to double escape them. string(REPLACE "\\" "" escaped_path "${toplevel_path}") string(REGEX REPLACE "([][.?*+|(

Re: [CMake] Rediscovering the compiler.

On Dec 3, 2007 7:35 AM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, there is no way currently in cmake to switch compilers once picked... Which I think is a good thing. It would drive me nuts if I couldn't count on the compiler choice as an invariant. Cheers,

Re: [CMake] Using Macro function like

make@cmake.org > > Subject: Re: [CMake] Using Macro function like > > > > On 03.12.07 05:47:29, Brandon Van Every wrote: > > > On Dec 3, 2007 5:41 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I invoke the macro by calling it with C

Re: [CMake] SUBSTRING - STRING - shorten a string variable

ot; source_and_after "${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}") if(source_and_after) string(REGEX REPLACE "${source_and_after_regex}" "\\1" after "${source_and_after}") # REPLACE replaces all occurrances, not just one. # Sometimes this causes probl

Re: FW: [CMake] Rediscovering the compiler.

MAND ${CMAKE_COMMAND} -G whatever_generator -D whatever_defines -D [...] ) Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] CMake cannot build a simple example on one of our computers

king on the "problem" machine, or investigate why CMake (any CMake) doesn't work on the "problem" machine. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] escaping!

as simple as the level of complication of your build. If I want encapsulation, I write a macro. Otherwise I'll just write straight CMake script, because I'd rather read CMake script than the docs of 5 different Unixy tools that all do their own kind of regular expression processing. Cheer

Re: [CMake] What does this mean: IF("${VARIABLE}" MATCHES "^${VARIABLE}$")

statement > > is still TRUE. > > It is checking to see if the VARIABLE has a value at all. It is old > code before we had IF(DEFINED VARIABLE) but works with all versions of > CMake. One of these days I'm going to try to construct a pathological input to make it barf. But I

Re: [CMake] escaping!

ow to solve this one. Through hacking, one finds the bleeding edge of CMake. When I've found the bleeding edge, I try to obtain 1 of 2 results: - an approach that works. If it's hairy, I may file a feature request. - a bug that's reproducible. In which case, I file a bug report. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] specify output directory when running from the command line

that (c)cmake --help is under-documented on this point. Cheers, Brandon Van Every On Dec 12, 2007 8:08 PM, Jesse Corrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When running CMake from the command line, how can I specify the directory to > put the output files in. Thanks. > > Jesse > > _

Re: [CMake] Ignoring command return code in add_custom_command

e an abnormal result. There were bugs regarding CMake script return codes once upon a time; hope those were fixed. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] CMake script vs. Lua (was: Ignoring command return code in add_custom_command)

uch easier to replace when migrating build systems. Sure, CMake has this "call out to whatever you like" philosophy. But I think builds are more maintainable and portable when CMake gets rid of all those tools. I also think it's strategically better for CMake's growth, to ha

Re: [CMake] Re: [cmake 2.5 CVS] CMAKE_${LANG}_FLAGS is initialized with space

bug or fix it. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] Re: [cmake 2.5 CVS] CMAKE_${LANG}_FLAGS is initialized with space

had incorrect arguments: ${CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS} STREQUAL " " (Unknown arguments s pecified). Called from: [1] C:/devel/moz/flags.cmake Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] Re: CMake script vs. Lua

#x27;t think that's quite enough to make the switch. What I'd really like to see, is an example of a build system that's much better in a "fullblown" language like Lua, that would be extremely painful to write in a stripped down language like CMake. We'll have to ask other build communities about such a project; obviously it won't exist in CMake code. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] Re: CMake script vs. Lua

take their issues seriously. I will remind: far more people don't use CMake, than do. Having to learn Yet Another Scripting Language is one of the perceived barriers. So addressing the issue, or *appearing* to address the issue, is strategically important. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] Re: CMake script vs. Lua

people examine other build systems and return with tangibles, i.e. "this is clearly better" rather than "I think it would be better." I agree that Kitware hasn't been persuaded of the value of using a 3rd party open source la

Re: [CMake] Re: CMake script vs. Lua

may gain plenty of mindshare as a build tool. But CMake script will never do so. It is incapable of that. It is not recognized by the computer industry as an important development language, and it never will be. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] Re: [cmake 2.5 CVS] CMAKE_${LANG}_FLAGS is initialized with space

think overhauling the string-oriented variables to make them list-oriented is feasible. And in one's own code, one has to choose whether to embrace a string-oriented or list-oriented flag handling style. More grist for the chapter. Cheers, Brandon Van Every

Re: [CMake] CMake script vs. Lua (was: Ignoring command return code in add_custom_command)

," I'd call that a documentation problem. CMake script users shouldn't have to look under the hood to figure out how use CMake modules either. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] Re: CMake script vs. Lua

On Dec 14, 2007 4:55 PM, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brandon Van Every escreveu: > > > I'm not willing to concede the clarity. As I just wrote, "backwards > > compatibility" is an issue to solve, not a dealbreaker. As for labor,

Re: [CMake] Re: CMake script vs. Lua

As long as I adopt a convention for what's a list and what's a string. And as long as I don't care about semicolons ; in my list elements. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Re: [CMake] Re: CMake script vs. Lua

On Dec 14, 2007 8:45 PM, Alexander Neundorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 14 December 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2007 2:38 PM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It really boils down to this: There is no way we can ever sto

Re: [CMake] Re: CMake script vs. Lua

On Dec 14, 2007 10:57 PM, Rodolfo Lima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brandon Van Every escreveu: > > > Most of my concerns about nicety of > > language are strategic, not tactical. > > Let's not forget that cmake is being used by KDE, I think they wouldn't

Re: [CMake] Re: CMake script vs. Lua

know where they went, and what competing products they're working on. > and are just happy to have the software build > correctly the first time they build it. (I could have fixed at least > one but instead of writing this email :) ). Short-term vs. long-term gain is

[CMake] Waf build tool

On Dec 15, 2007 1:55 PM, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 15, 2007 12:41 PM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > There are some vocal > > complainers about the language, but I suspect there is a silent majority > > that

Re: [CMake] Waf build tool

aintaining significant new CMake functionality. Cheers, Brandon Van Every ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

[CMake] too many kinds of FALSE

t type var = var - 1. The problem with assuming that "0" means FALSE, is it assumes I got my "0" by counting with a MATH expression. What if I got my "0" by matching with a regex, like a digit of a library version? "-NOTFOUND" doesn't trouble me so much, a

Re: [CMake] too many kinds of FALSE

On Dec 16, 2007 11:57 AM, David Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/16/07, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What's so great about "n" and "no" ? > > Nobody has claimed that they are great... > > > &g

Re: [CMake] Waf build tool

On Dec 16, 2007 1:11 PM, Gonzalo Garramuño <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brandon Van Every wrote: > > Waf is the offering of a fellow > > who clearly thinks OO is important in a build system for some reason. > > http://code.google.com/p/waf/ > > > > A quick ev

Re: [CMake] too many kinds of FALSE

On Dec 16, 2007 1:44 PM, Alexander Neundorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 16 December 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote: > > On Dec 16, 2007 11:57 AM, David Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 12/16/07, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: &

Re: [CMake] Waf build tool

On Dec 16, 2007 1:54 PM, Alexander Neundorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sunday 16 December 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote: > > On Dec 16, 2007 1:11 PM, Gonzalo Garramuño <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Brandon Van Every wrote: > > > > Waf is

Re: [CMake] Creation of CMAKE_*_LIBRARY_EXTENSION

currently means. CMAKE_*_LIBRARY_EXTENSION could be a documented synonym for it. CMAKE_*_LIBRARY_SUFFIX 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" a

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >