19 messages in com.perforce.jamming[jamming] RFC: On the future of Jam, ...
FromSent OnAttachments
David Turner29 Jun 2001 01:48 
Werner LEMBERG29 Jun 2001 03:00 
Robert Cowham29 Jun 2001 03:57 
David Turner29 Jun 2001 04:07 
David Turner29 Jun 2001 05:29 
Arnt Gulbrandsen29 Jun 2001 06:42 
David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com (David Abrahams)29 Jun 2001 06:49 
Jos Backus29 Jun 2001 09:30 
Beman Dawes29 Jun 2001 10:29 
David Turner29 Jun 2001 11:07 
Jos Backus29 Jun 2001 11:23 
David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com (David Abrahams)29 Jun 2001 12:45 
Werner LEMBERG30 Jun 2001 23:36 
David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com (David Abrahams)01 Jul 2001 05:53 
Roger Lipscombe02 Jul 2001 03:15 
David Turner02 Jul 2001 06:40 
David Turner02 Jul 2001 06:54 
Jos Backus02 Jul 2001 11:07 
Paul Moore02 Jul 2001 12:37 
Subject:[jamming] RFC: On the future of Jam, "FT Jam" and Boost
From:David Turner (davi@freetype.org)
Date:07/02/2001 06:54:58 AM
List:com.perforce.jamming

Hi David,

I think people would like some simple way to configure the executable to use a different "base" file without the need for "-f".

I suppose it's easy enough to fake that with the appropriate shell script, but it might make sense to give people a compiled-in mechanism, like the use of a .jamrc file.

Yep. Either a ".jamrc" file or an environment variable should do the trick. I think it's wiser to implement _both_ schemes, since users have different expectations depending on the system they're working on, typically:

- Unix users all have a HOME variable defined and can use a ".jamrc" file easily.

- for Windows users, setting a variable named JAMBASE to point to a configuration file is simpler than defining a HOME variable then a file named ".jamrc" :-)

And of course, the command-line flags should still be there for other users too (shell scripts invoking dynamically-generated Jamfiles is just an example :-)

"Marmalade" has been suggested, it seems nice :-)

It's cute (et surtout, très Français), but I have these concerns:

It's not French actually :-)

jam <=> confiture marmalade <=> marmelade jelly <=> gelée

I believe that the difference between these three words are the sugar/fruit ratios, though I'm unsure..

1. It's a long name to type. Anything longer than "make" will deter adoption ;-)

OK. Moreover, it's more than 8 letters long, think about how ugly "marmal~1" is going to be on Win9x systems ;-)

2. I think I'd like to keep the boost identity attached to the architecture somehow.

Humm.. maybe we should choose two names:

A - one for the "enhanced jam" thing (currently FT Jam) B - one for the "Boost.Build" thing

For "A", I think that any name would fit, because the final executable should ideally still be called "jam", since it will be 100% backwards compatible with the official Jam.

For "B", I propose "booster".

- it's short - it has the "boost" identity - space aeronautics are cool :-)

Comments ?

Cheers,

- David Turner