Re: cons for modular packages

[Dean Roehrich]

>From:  Axel Hecht <address@hidden>

>Hey, I got another name:
>Buildscope
>Opposing to Build or Build_Scope, it's not as easy to be taken as a 
>verb, and it speaks
>quite frankly about what is new in the file that is named.

When I hear Buildscope I think you're stressing scope (ok, you are).  The only
thing that is limited to the scope of that sub-Conscript is the Perl
environment variables, and so I think you're stressing the wrong thing.  The
sub-Conscript is about the dependencies and build rules it contains; it's not
about the Perl variables that are used within it.

Maybe Project(), or Subproject(), is something to consider.  Each
sub-Conscript file is a project or subproject of the whole.  Again, this
doesn't tie the locations or responsibilities of the sub-Conscript files to
the directory structure of the source tree.  It gives you a hint that each
sub-Conscript might have some purpose that has nothing to do with "you're
responsible for everything in this directory".

Ah, then multiple sub-Conscripts within the same directory are going to be
common practice--even when they're tied to the directory structure ala current
practice.  Then the word "Conscript" will become a filename prefix, rather
than a whole filename itself.

Dean