Re: [CMake] too many kinds of FALSE

2007-12-16 Thread David Cole
On 12/16/07, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's so great about n and no ? Nobody has claimed that they are great... I've never used them. Do we really need to be polluting the interpretation of strings with these values? What current or legacy code is using them heavily?

Re: [CMake] too many kinds of FALSE

2007-12-16 Thread Brandon Van Every
On Dec 16, 2007 11:57 AM, David Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/16/07, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's so great about n and no ? Nobody has claimed that they are great... I've never used them. Do we really need to be polluting the interpretation of strings with

Re: [CMake] too many kinds of FALSE

2007-12-16 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Sunday 16 December 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote: On Dec 16, 2007 11:57 AM, David Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/16/07, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's so great about n and no ? Nobody has claimed that they are great... I've never used them. Do we

Re: [CMake] too many kinds of FALSE

2007-12-16 Thread Brandon Van Every
On Dec 16, 2007 1:44 PM, Alexander Neundorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 16 December 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote: On Dec 16, 2007 11:57 AM, David Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/16/07, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's so great about n and no ? Nobody

[CMake] too many kinds of FALSE

2007-12-15 Thread Brandon Van Every
CMake defines FALSE as a string that's empty, 0, N, NO, OFF, FALSE, NOTFOUND, or variable-NOTFOUND. I just realized that my regexes are not safe with respect to capturing the letter n. set(sillystring The rain in spain) string(REGEX MATCH .$ thematch ${sillystring}) if(thematch)