On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 14:11:44 -0400, David Cole wrote: > Interesting. So, sort of, but not really. At least not explicitly.
Well, the docs state it, but there's no error for setting CMP0010 OLD and CMP0053 NEW at the same time other than the CMP0053 parser turning any code which would have required CMP0010 into a parse error (and it warns about the two parsers disagreeing if CMP0053 is the default). > I'm still interested in seeing an example commit (even if it's only > theoretical and will never actually be merged in) whose explicit > purpose is removing the OLD behavior of a single policy. (Is there > such a commit which removed the OLD behavior of CMP0010, or is it too > entwined in the parser improvement commits from the 3.1 release cycle > as to be easily identifiable as a concise diff?) My initial attempt at the new parser removed the parser entirely (5000+ lines removed :D ), but it has too many corner cases (allowed escape sequences, CMP0010, and others; look at the tests which came with CMP0053 for a taste). --Ben -- Powered by www.kitware.com Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more information on each offering, please visit: CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
