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) )
The old syntax of raise scope often required that you first set the value of
the variable
FUNCTION(SET_VAR1 varname)
SET(${varname} There's science to do PARENT_SCOPE)
ENDFUNCTION(SET_VAR1)
FUNCTION(SET_VAR2 varname)
SET_VAR1(${varname})
ENDFUNCTION(SET_VAR2)
SET_VAR2(foo)
MESSAGE(${foo})
Obviously foo is not set, since it is now set in SET_VAR2 scope. Bummer.
So
At 2/18/2008 10:10 AM, Ken Martin wrote:
FUNCTION(SET_VAR2 varname)
SET_VAR1(${varname})
ENDFUNCTION(SET_VAR2)
And you should live with that. And like it dang it! :)
I'm linking it but I'm kinda surprised you wouldn't go for something
beautiful *and* eternally classic like a new
On Feb 16, 2008 3:48 PM, Alexander Neundorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any opinion whether RAISE_SCOPE/PARENT_SCOPE should propagate to the parent
directory if it's used outside a function ?
What if I do want a variable to propagate up through nested
functions functions, but I don't want any
Quoting Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have to admit, PARENT_SCOPE nomenclature bugs me. I don't know of
any mainstream programming language that explicitly asks me to think
about scope when setting a variable.
Ruby asks. But it does so in a so nicely and clear way that you
On Friday 18 January 2008, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Friday 18 January 2008, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima wrote:
Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva wrote:
Again, I think this behaviour is a quite unintuitive and should be
well documented, at least.
I shall add that at first I expected
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Friday 18 January 2008, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Friday 18 January 2008, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima wrote:
Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva wrote:
Again, I think this behaviour is a quite unintuitive and should be
well documented, at least.
I shall add that at first
On Saturday 16 February 2008, Bill Hoffman wrote:
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Friday 18 January 2008, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
...
set(foo a b c PARENT_SCOPE)
I'm not sure it is a good idea that this also propagates to the parent
directory. What is a use case for this ?
What do
On Saturday 16 February 2008, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Saturday 16 February 2008, Bill Hoffman wrote:
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Friday 18 January 2008, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
...
set(foo a b c PARENT_SCOPE)
I'm not sure it is a good idea that this also propagates to the
At 2/16/2008 02:13 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
I don't mean to remove the SET(PARENT_SCOPE) feature, where the main
purpose is to set a global variable from within a function.
But if SET( ... PARENT_SCOPE) is called outside a function, the effect is
that the variable is set in the parent
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}
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
Sebastien BARRE wrote:
OK, back to PARENT_SCOPE. Well, Tcl/Tk has 'upvar' (which RAISE_SCOPE
was inspired from), *and* 'global', which would pretty much declare
variables inside a procedure/function to be of the global scope
nature. I don't really like any of them. If I had to give a (crazy)
On Friday 18 January 2008, Ken Martin wrote:
Yes, and I'll also remove raise_scope() then. Ok ?
Yuppers - Ken
Done.
I noticed that almost all calls are now:
set(var ${var} PARENT_SCOPE)
Is propagating the value up to the parent directory really a good idea ? If
people want to do that (get
Yes, and I'll also remove raise_scope() then. Ok ?
Yuppers - Ken
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Neundorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 12:54 PM
To: cmake@cmake.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [CMake] Re: function and raise_scope commands
On Friday 18 January 2008, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima wrote:
Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva wrote:
Again, I think
16 matches
Mail list logo
