[CMake] Secret precompiled header support?

[Robert Dailey]

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Eric Noulard <eric.noulard at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2012/5/15 Robert Dailey <rcdailey.lists at gmail.com>:
> >
> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave at boostpro.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> For me, no.  I'm trying to make a transition to CMake in a community
> >> where this is being seen as a problematic limitation.
> >
> >
> > I actually was reading over the boost modularization discussion, but I
> > didn't spend enough time there to understand what this whole process is
> for.
> > I'm assuming this is being setup so users can download pieces of boost
> > individually and only use the parts they want. I'm glad that Boost is
> making
> > a real effort to use CMake. I think such an influential community being
> > involved with CMake will help push Kitware to realize how serious people
> are
> > taking their products and maybe they'll make a move to "professionalize"
> > them.
>
> I could not resist a troll like that.
> No offense but saying that CMake has to address such and such
> limitation/weirdiness seems ok to me,
> but going down to infer that no "serious" people do currently use
> CMake is a little hard to read...
>
> ...and... I'm not speaking for myself since
> I'm not considering myself as a serious guy anyway :-]
>
> All that said I can witness that serious patches are more than usually
> welcome :-)


Please make sure you properly understand what I'm saying before you call me
a troll.

I was using the word "serious" here as more of a verb, not an adjective.
I'm saying that boost considering CMake is an indication of how people are
taking CMake seriously. In other words, popular communities are depending
on CMake (or gathering interest in) which makes CMake a tool taken more
seriously. Understand now?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/attachments/20120516/096305bf/attachment-0001.htm>