Hi Brandon,
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Fernando Cacciola
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon wrote:
I am starting to wonder if the whole Lua thing is indeed a red
herring, and what CMake really needs is the best possible website to
document, tutorialize, and market CMake. In other
2.Closing statements need and empty () [at least they don't need to
duplicate the expressions any more].
Technically I believe this is possible. It has been asked for in the past.
Just a change to the yacc IIRC. I tend to not mind () personally.
7.It has no functions (implemented in the
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Fernando Cacciola
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nutshell: is it strategically a good idea to implement Lua support for
CMake?
- CMake script must be maintained indefinitely for a small percentage
of users no matter what the migration strategy
BTW, this
At 3/4/2008 12:28 PM, Brandon Van Every wrote:
- CMake script must be maintained indefinitely for a small percentage
of users no matter what the migration strategy
BTW, this point is intended to mean that CMake script must always be
supported, even under the most wildly optimistic
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Fernando Cacciola
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon wrote:
I am starting to wonder if the whole Lua thing is indeed a red
herring, and what CMake really needs is the best possible website to
document, tutorialize, and market CMake. In other words, what
