On 08.08.07 12:46:56, Philip Lowman wrote: > Brandon Van Every wrote: > > On 8/8/07, Philip Lowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I love CMake, but there have been times when I wished that > >> > >> --enable-foo would simply be a shortcut to set a boolean variable > >> ENABLE_FOO to true. > > > > Some would say that's not nice because you don't get exactly what's on > > the command line. By the logic of exactitude, --enable-foo should > > define enable-foo to true. And if I wanted ENABLE_FOO, then I'd put > > --ENABLE_FOO on the command line. Or I could put -DENABLE_FOO, > > couldn't I? ;p My point is that --enable-foo is an Autoconf > > convention, nothing more. It's mainly about making an Autoconf > > migration crowd happy. > > Actually, it's more like this: > > cmake -D USE_FOO=BOOL:ON . > or > cmake -D USE_FOO=BOOL:OFF .
Not quite, the BOOL: is not needed. > The fact that people don't even know the proper way to define variables > at the command line (myself included) should be proof positive that > CMake could use some improvement when operating in command line mode. Or that people should start reading documentations ;) Andreas -- You too can wear a nose mitten. _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake