Tobias Hunger wrote:
> Did anyone find some time for a review yet?
Hi Tobias,
I had a look through this this evening. Thanks for working on this. The
commit adding the functionality at the end looks much better after the extra
generator refactoring.
Here are some review notes:
* That commit
Sebastian Holtermann wrote:
>> It might be better to just use a NULL sentinel at the end of the array.
>> If not, the extra spaces here should go away.
>
> I have changed that to use a NULL sentinel.
> std::array would be the best solution IMO but it is not allowed, is it?
You could use cmArrayB
Thanks for the feedback.
I have prepared an other approach which uses checksum suffixes
instead of nested directory generation.
This was tested on my Debian/amd64/Makefile setup.
Interesting; I like it. Might be worthwhile to reuse it for the .o files
in the future as well (since these can con
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 17:31:00 +0200, Sebastian Holtermann wrote:
> I have prepared an other approach which uses checksum suffixes
> instead of nested directory generation.
> This was tested on my Debian/amd64/Makefile setup.
Interesting; I like it. Might be worthwhile to reuse it for the .o fil
Am 21.07.2016 um 17:40 schrieb Brad King:
On 04/22/2016 09:37 AM, Brad King wrote:
The rest of the changes are now in 'master'. Thanks for working on this!
Unfortunately I've had to revert some of these changes due to
regressions they cause. See issue here:
https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmak
Hi Rick,
this is something I played with a bit, and while it is completely possible
to make your own little python binding, it will not be merged into CMake,
which means you will have to maintain it on your side.
Also, you will need to write the whole interface yourself, as the current
CMake lib A