[CMake] Re: CMake script vs. Lua

[Rodolfo Schulz de Lima]

Brandon Van Every escreveu:
> Certain CMake people want to *say* it was conclusive, so that the
> issue will go away, but it wasn't conclusive.  In particular, I have
> to note the self-selecting nature of the CMake community.  If you
> stick around and duke it out with CMake, there's a pretty good chance
> you don't think "completeness" in a build language is important.
> That's why I started asking around in other build system communities,
> to see what they think is important.  Nothing conclusive or
> enlightening to report so far.

I didn't quite get what you mean here about 'self-selecting nature of 
CMake community' (sorry, English language barrier).

> Ken showed proof of concept for Lua.  "It's too hard" would be a
> completely silly argument at this point.

And for what I saw, its implementation could be better (no unpack, etc...).

> We do, however, have new scope and function operators in CVS CMake.
> So we should all play with those for awhile before revisiting the Lua
> issue, I think.

That's the point. I even don't know if there's an agreement on the fact 
that cmake script is a good script or not. It seems it isn't because 
something basic as scoped variables got implemented recently, etc. Is it 
feasible to wait for the need of other obvious features (like return 
values from functions, pcre, etc..)? I mean, as time progresses, it 
becomes more and more difficult to change root paradigms (like the 
script language). So if cmake script is incomplete, why not change it to 
something more complete?

You said about function operators... can we now return values from 
functions and do something like: message(string(TOUPPER "cmake"))? If we 
do, one less item in my wishlist :)

Regards,
rod