Re: #include's and Quoting

[H. S. Teoh]

On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 08:27:00AM -0500, Steve Jones wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dmitry Sagalovskiy [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:52 PM
[snip]
> > I believe if you use repositories but whenever you have a 
> > local copy of files, you have local copies of whole directories, then 
> > quoted #includes will work, because both the compiler and cons will
> > see the same files. In other words, problems should only arise if
> > files that are included with #include "..." aren't in the directory
> > where you are building, but only in a repository directory. If you
> > take advantage of the repository feature on a directory-by-directory
> > basis, then I don't think quoted includes will give you problems.
> > 
> > I may be wrong, but that's how I explain the fact that we use 
> > cons with repositories and #include "..." headers, and everything
> > works fine.
> 
> OK, if this is the case then there's a glimmer of hope. Frankly,
> everything else I've seen of it shines in terms of cleanness and
> sensibility. 

There are some (slightly) ugly bits in Cons; but those are nothing
compared with the blatant flaws in Make and many of the other Make
replacements. (Like that horror known as IMake...)

> Concerning the scons suggestions, I'm much to much of a biggoted
> Perl-supremist to even give it a second thought. :^0 In fact, cons' perl
> basis was my inital attaction. I suppose I'm too religious for my own
> good. :^)
[snip]

I've also been rather hard-headed in sticking with Cons just because of
Perl, even though it's old, and SCons does have new features (which are
difficult to add to Cons in its current state). There was some talk about
re-implementing Cons in a more extensible manner; but so far nothing
seemed to have happened, and I haven't gotten around to taking a more
careful look at it. :-(

And it doesn't help with my perception of Python that I stumbled across
this:
        http://www.flat222.org/mac/bench/

(Caveat: I am skeptical of the results described on the page because of
the ad hoc way they were obtained; nevertheless, it doesn't cast Python in
a very good light. ;-))


T

-- 
Not all rumours are as misleading as this one.