On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:44:15 +1100, Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/30 Nick Treleaven nick.treleaven@btinternet.com
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:30:20 +1100 Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I haven't looked at them. Until we have a stable build commands design, I would prefer we don't complicate things. It's not so bad using an existing command to compile headers.
Ok, if no other objections I'll implement an option for compile headers
off
by default and lets see how it goes.
Well, we might want to make changes to the build system, or extend GUI functionality in some way. This would likely be made more complex if we have to also support different sets of build commands.
I think it would be best to keep the alternate build commands feature separate from the main build work.
Ummm to make sure my last proposal above was understood, what I was proposing was not to have alternate commands for now, just to have an option to make the c/c++ filetype commands available for headers. Currently headers are hard coded to be unable to access any build or compile commands. If headers need a different build command then one of the spare commands will have to be used and the user must choose the correct command for header or body. Since there is some risk in that process, eg choosing the wrong command may have unintended side effects, the option is off by default (giving current behavior). It probably should be a hidden option, not on the GUI.
Er, didn't we already decided that the current restriction to not compile header files can/should be removed? I think we don't need an option for this. Just allow compiling header files and leave it in the user's responsibility with which command he/she compiles a header file.
Regards, Enrico