Notes |
|
(0038386)
|
Stephen Kelly
|
2015-04-01 16:30
|
|
|
|
(0038389)
|
David Cole
|
2015-04-01 16:38
|
|
I vote for option number 2 -- documenting the existing format.
It's not hard to parse. CMake does it all the time...
It would be silly to change CMake just for convenience of external tools when they have to deal with multiple versions of CMake in the wild anyhow. |
|
|
(0038390)
|
Tobias Hunger
|
2015-04-02 06:21
(edited on: 2015-04-02 08:10) |
|
As one possible consumer of said file: I'd prefer option 1.
A new file keeps the CMake internals nicely separate of the information you provide to 3rd party tools, can be written in a format that does not require a custom parser.
PS: Those "-ADVANCED" variables should be hidden away in a non-public place:-)
|
|
|
(0038391)
|
Anton Makeev
|
2015-04-02 07:51
|
|
1) A new format in a new file
This option assumes that this file is either read-only, or CMake will have to decide which file to prefer when regenerating the project - CMakeCache.txt or this new file
2) Documenting the existing format.
It's easily parseable by both the code and by the user, making it versatile.
My vote for documenting what we have now. |
|
|
(0038392)
|
Tobias Hunger
|
2015-04-02 08:13
|
|
Yes, I think this should be a *read-only* interface. You can already run cmake and other tools to change settings.
Stephen, Anton and me are discussing an IDE-metadata file. In my opinion that would be the best place to put a read-only dump of the configuration. That way an IDE only needs to read one file in one format. |
|
|
(0038393)
|
Stephen Kelly
|
2015-04-02 12:57
|
|
I believe I have a solution for the problems mentioned, but I want to do some more research before posting an updated design. |
|
|
(0042749)
|
Kitware Robot
|
2016-06-10 14:29
|
|
Resolving issue as `moved`.
This issue tracker is no longer used. Further discussion of this issue may take place in the current CMake Issues page linked in the banner at the top of this page. |
|