On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Brad King <brad.k...@kitware.com> wrote:
> See above. Lua has come up several times in the past in particular because > its implementation is meant to be small and embeddable. I've thought a few > times about how to make Lua scripting available from within the CMake > language > in a clean way, but that will not be as valuable as the above pure-spec > approach. > > Please, do not do that. The moment you make CMake scriptable in more than one language, you are forcing every CMake user to learn that additional language because sooner or later he will step into a third-party that is using that additional language. IMHO, if you want Lua, then Lua it is. But then please get rid of CMake scripting. BTW, I am sure you are aware of CMakeScript, CMake scripting in JavaScript: http://sourceforge.net/projects/cmakescript/ Also, declarative? Why? There are already a few declarative build systems (e. g. qbs, one of the reasons for its existence was CMake was not declarative). By moving CMake from the current procedural scripting to a declarative approach, you may alienate your current user base and be good for none anymore. -- Pau Garcia i Quiles http://www.elpauer.org (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)
-- 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
