To clarify, I'm not proposing the existing cmake language be disbanded or thrown away. I think cmake is a compelling and complete piece of software as it is, and perhaps a majority of the (existing) users would not be interested in writing build scripts in another language.
All I'm suggesting is that if a library were built as part of the cmake build that drew a nice line between language parsing and makefile generation, then people like me who constantly want to hack stuff up and try stuff out would be able to do so at a level higher than cmake and in a complimentary and cooperative way. If the existing built-in cmake language parser used that interface it would maintain itself. This is different than the Lua proposition, because I'm taking a more conservative path... I don't know that picking a language and shoving it into cmake is the right way to go. > A bunch of gratuitous compartmentalization is gonna slow them > down... unless they were already planning on doing that kind of > separation anyways. Whether such a separation is "gratuitous compartmentalization" or is "correct architecture" is not a question I know the answer to yet. I'm sure the folks who wrote the stuff (and tirelessly maintain it) do. If the concensus is the former then I'll shut up and continue to use (and advocate) cmake as it is. lloyd _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
