On Friday 06 July 2001 16:26, Ed L Cashin wrote:

> > Actually I've given this quite a bit more thought and I don't see any
> > reason why this functionality couldn't simply be an extension in its own
> > right. Then you could simply have an 'extconf.rb' file which invokes the
> > jam extension and falls back on 'mkmf' if jam is not available.
> >
> > I think that addresses your concerns - no?
>
> You mean if someone who likes jam writes extensions, they can supply
> ruby code for the build that will invoke jam preferentially or fall
> back to make?

Exactly.

> Yes, that would certainly address my concerns, since my concerns were
> about forcing jam's functionality into ruby itself.

Good. I probably explained it badly initially, but I was not suggesting that 
Jam become part of Ruby's core syntax, just that it be available through Ruby 
and that that would be a Good Thing. I'll have a crack at it when I can and 
post it for comments.

Tony.
=====================
Tony Smith
tony at smee dot org
=====================