On 12/06/2013 03:11 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 2013-12-06 14:51, Daniele E. Domenichelli wrote: >> Are you sure you don't want the command to be renamed to >> "parse_arguments"? The only commands containing "cmake" looks strictly >> related to "cmake", and the arguments parsing does not look that much >> related... > > FWIW, I was sort-of hoping it would be. If so, CMakeParseArguments.cmake > can be left with a simple stub to call the new version. > > As a bonus, the new version could itself take named arguments instead of > positional with a flag whether or not to skip empty (default = keep) > with the compatibility wrapper instead specifying to skip, and no policy > would be needed (if you want the new behavior, just use parse_arguments).
The C++-implemented command would be able to handle both the existing positional or a new proposed keyword-based signature. The name "parse_arguments" is not specific enough about what kind of arguments it parses. By keeping the name as "cmake_parse_arguments" it indicates that it parses cmake-language arguments, though another name such as "process_cmake_command_arguments" would do that too. An advantage of keeping the name is that existing callers get the speed-up immediately. Furthermore there will be less code left in the old module to maintain. Matthew, would you have time to work on the C++ impl? I think we could start with reproducing the current signature. Optionally add the policy for handling empty arguments. Then add a proposed keyword-based sig that handles empty arguments always. 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
