On Saturday 16 February 2008, Sebastien BARRE wrote: Hi Sebastian, ... > Hey guys, ... > Obviously foo is not set, since it is now set in SET_VAR2 scope. Bummer. > So now I have to do things like this: > > FUNCTION(SET_VAR2 varname) > SET_VAR1(varname_proxy) > SET(${varname} ${varname_proxy} PARENT_SCOPE) > ENDFUNCTION(SET_VAR2) > > Which I guess I could live with, except that it gets *old* as the > number of parameters grows, and it kinda goes against my goal of > sticking with small "understandable" macros...
Would RAISE_SCOPE(var1 var2 ... varN) be better ? Why was the syntax changed from that to RAISE_SCOPE(varname value) ? (which was basically a set() and that's why converted to set(... PARENT_SCOPE) ) ... > I know about PROPERTIES, but I'm still not convinced, since they > don't behave like variables. For a simple thing like working on a Yes, I don't think they would be appropriate here. Any opinion whether RAISE_SCOPE/PARENT_SCOPE should propagate to the parent directory if it's used outside a function ? Alex _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake