[CMake] Checking MSVC90 or higher?

[Mike Jackson]

On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Robert Dailey<rcdailey at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Tyler Roscoe <tyler at cryptio.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 02:30:36PM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:
>> > The problem is that there is no central location for this data. I was
>> > referencing the useful
>> > variables<http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_Useful_Variables>page on the
>> > CMake Wiki, and no mention of MSVC_VERSION existed.
>>
>> You don't think http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help/cmake2.6docs.html counts
>> as a "central location"?
>
> For the most part, I'd say that documentation page covers 98% of all the
> information I've had to find, which is absolutely wonderful. This particular
> bit of information happens to fall into that remaining 2%. The "Useful
> variables" page contains information that the official documentation does
> not, such as any mention of the MSVC90 variable. I'm simply pointing it out
> as a minor issue and hopefully someone will merge the information some day.
>
>>
>> It's even available from the command line as
>> cmake --help.
>
> I am aware of this, but why bother when it is available online?
>
>>
>> The Useful Variables page is, by definition, not exhaustive.
>
> It doesn't have to be, it just have to have good coverage of the topic(s) it
> was designed to cover. I like that CMake has a Wiki, I think it suits it
> perfectly, but the fact that we have some information on the Wiki and some
> of it not on the wiki (Hence the official documentation) makes it slightly
> less intuitive than it could be. I think it would be great to either have
> every bit of documentation exclusively on the wiki OR have it exclusively on
> the official documentation page. I am very grateful that CMake has
> documentation in the first place, regardless of where it is placed. It would
> most certainly be a bigger issue if it didn't exist. However, while the
> documentation is great, that doesn't mean it couldn't use some improvement.
> Anyway, I was just trying to be helpful by pointing out the mixup in the
> documentation.
> Again, thank you for your help.

That is why I wrote a shell script to generate help files that I can
use with QtAssistant. They are all broken down into commands,
variables  etc. They are also indexed and searchable. If you are
interested I can send the script. Basically I generate them for each
release. I then have an "alias" on the command like to launch
QtAssistant with that help documentation set.

Mike Jackson