Re: [CMake] Complaint about if..endif

Andreas Schneider a écrit : On Sunday 23 November 2008 17:43:53 cyril_wobow wrote: Sure, I guess we are all here because CMake is a very powerful suite, with tons of functionalities and useful abstractions. But I challenge anyone to seriously tell me that he/she enjoys writing CMake script. A

Re: [CMake] Complaint about if..endif

On Sunday 23 November 2008 17:43:53 cyril_wobow wrote: > Sure, I guess we are all here because CMake is a very powerful suite, > with tons of functionalities and useful abstractions. But I challenge > anyone to seriously tell me that he/she enjoys writing CMake script. As > soon as you don't have t

Re: [CMake] Complaint about if..endif

On Nov 23, 2008, at 11:43 AM, cyril_wobow wrote: Robert Dailey a écrit : On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 4:20 AM, cyril_wobow <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Like a ... python front end ? Seriously, cmake is really, really, really verbose and terribly unreadable as a

Re: [CMake] Complaint about if..endif

Le Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:43:53 +0100, cyril_wobow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > Robert Dailey a écrit : > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 4:20 AM, cyril_wobow <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > Like a ... python front end ? > > > > Seriously, cmake is really, real

Re: [CMake] Complaint about if..endif

Robert Dailey a écrit : On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 4:20 AM, cyril_wobow <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Like a ... python front end ? Seriously, cmake is really, really, really verbose and terribly unreadable as a scripting language... I would agree with you in

Re: [CMake] Complaint about if..endif

Le Sun, 23 Nov 2008 12:15:06 +1100, "Jack Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > hi rob, > > > Why must endif() contain the same expression as the associated if() > > command? > > i think this could be the most noticed feature of cmake (in the five > minute test). as noted, in other posts, yo

Re: [CMake] Complaint about if..endif

On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 4:20 AM, cyril_wobow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Like a ... python front end ? > > Seriously, cmake is really, really, really verbose and terribly unreadable > as a scripting language... > I would agree with you in that CMake isn't perfect and it does have a lot of issue

Re: [CMake] Complaint about if..endif

Jack Andrews a écrit : hi rob, Why must endif() contain the same expression as the associated if() command? i think this could be the most noticed feature of cmake (in the five minute test). as noted, in other posts, you don't have to any more. but i've been thinking of creating anot

Re: [CMake] Complaint about if..endif

hi rob, > Why must endif() contain the same expression as the associated if() command? i think this could be the most noticed feature of cmake (in the five minute test). as noted, in other posts, you don't have to any more. but i've been thinking of creating another, less verbose, front end for

Re: [CMake] Complaint about if..endif

Ioan Calin Borcoman wrote: Does this apply to else(), too? And could you please update the man page? In cmake 2.6.0 and greater the arguments are optional. if(foo AND BAR) ... endif() works just fine without the variable being set. -Bill ___ CMak

Re: [CMake] Complaint about if..endif

Does this apply to else(), too? And could you please update the man page? Thanx. Ionutz On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Philip Lowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Robert Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Why must endif() contain the same expres

Re: [CMake] Complaint about if..endif

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Robert Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Why must endif() contain the same expression as the associated if() > command? Isn't CMake smart enough to know that a simple occurrence of > "endif()" simply matches the previous if(), regardless of its expressio

[CMake] Complaint about if..endif

Hi, Why must endif() contain the same expression as the associated if() command? Isn't CMake smart enough to know that a simple occurrence of "endif()" simply matches the previous if(), regardless of its expression list? Are there any plans to simplify this? The way it is now is redundant and boil