2013/5/25 Alexander Neundorf
> On Saturday 25 May 2013, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
> > 2013/5/22 Alexander Neundorf
> >
> > > On Monday 20 May 2013, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
> > > > 2013/5/20 Brad King
> > > >
> > > > > We had some recent discussion about encouraging the convention of
> > > > > "namesp
On Saturday 25 May 2013, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
> 2013/5/22 Alexander Neundorf
>
> > On Monday 20 May 2013, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
> > > 2013/5/20 Brad King
> > >
> > > > We had some recent discussion about encouraging the convention of
> > > > "namespace::" for imported targets, but perhaps we s
2013/5/22 Alexander Neundorf
> On Monday 20 May 2013, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
> > 2013/5/20 Brad King
> >
> > > We had some recent discussion about encouraging the convention of
> > > "namespace::" for imported targets, but perhaps we should reconsider
> > > the value and cost.
> >
> > One of CMak
On Monday 20 May 2013, Daniel Pfeifer wrote:
> 2013/5/20 Brad King
>
> > We had some recent discussion about encouraging the convention of
> > "namespace::" for imported targets, but perhaps we should reconsider
> > the value and cost.
>
> One of CMake's most powerful features in my opionion is
2013/5/20 Brad King
> We had some recent discussion about encouraging the convention of
> "namespace::" for imported targets, but perhaps we should reconsider
> the value and cost.
One of CMake's most powerful features in my opionion is the way it handles
sub-projects.
I can take two CMake-proj
