At 2/16/2008 03:48 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
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) )
Sorry, I missed the fact that RAISE_SCOPE had changed. I thought you guys ditched it, I remember looking for it in my local tree, and it was gone. It should be ditched if the only thing it does is the same as SET(... PARENT_SCOPE). But in any case it doesn't solve my "parent of a parent scope" problem (etc.).
Any opinion whether RAISE_SCOPE/PARENT_SCOPE should propagate to the parent directory if it's used outside a function ?
Yes, I gave my opinion in the other email I think. Directory, functions, I think these should not be different cases, otherwise it will make for too many exceptions: let's just see them as "change of scope". So in that case, yes, for consistency, SET(... PARENT_SCOPE) should definitely raise the value to the parent directory, i.e. to the parent scope if you are in a directory scope. There are already too many syntax tricks to learn, let's not add one. But if that is to be fixed for 2.6, I would *rather* the parent_scope feature be fixed for real-world use, i.e. function that can call functions, etc. I know CMake is a not a programming language, but it's nice to create reusable functions.
_______________________________________________ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
