On 06/28/2013 06:02 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > Is it really worthwhile to introduce both INTERFACE and LINK_INTERFACE?
No, I forgot that "LINK_INTERFACE" does not exist. It is fine to just add "INTERFACE". > * LINK_PUBLIC is treated as an alias for PUBLIC > * LINK_PRIVATE is treated as an alias for PRIVATE Yes, though see response below about mixing. > * LINK_INTERFACE_LIBRARIES is *not* treated as an ALIAS for INTERFACE Correct. This one is different because it is a command mode, not a keyword that can appear anywhere among other libraries. > That would mean mixtures like this would be allowed: > > target_link_libraries(lhs LINK_PUBLIC a PRIVATE b) > > Should they be? I was thinking that at the time I sent the grandparent message but now that I see an example spelled out I agree it looks nicer to make them exclusive. That will also be easier to document because the list of signatures will not need something like "<PUBLIC|LINK_PUBLIC>" in it. So, if the first argument after the lhs is "LINK_PUBLIC" or "LINK_PRIVATE" then it is the existing signature, and if it is "PUBLIC" or "PRIVATE" or "INTERFACE" then it is the "new" signature, right? Thanks, -Brad -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
