The goal behind Evoke is to rely solely on the code itself, and the directory structure around the code, to determine what makes up which components, and which components are which type.
The Beman project setup is almost perfect for it - including cloning a bunch of Beman projects into separate folders including cross-dependencies - except for the examples folder containing multiple examples, presumably with separate main() functions.
If each of the examples are just a function to be triggered through a main entry point for the examples, then it will work as is. However, if they are supposed to be separate executables, then it would (according to Evoke’s logic) need each of them to be its own folder.
Would this be an acceptable change?
There’s a teensy thing too - the test folder it expects is “test”, not “tests” - but that’s one that I think Evoke should just fix instead.
Welcome @dascandy! So I assume Evoke is this? GitHub - dascandy/evoke: Magic build tool
So to be clear are you suggesting evoke for the role of taking say 3 ranges repos and combining them into a single ranges repo?
Note that if you stare carefully at the Beman standard we’re doing are best to say cmake and python are about the extent of the tool chain (outside of compilers, coverage, documentation, and package managers optionally). So w.r.t adding another thing we’ll want some really compelling use cases.
I’m suggesting that by making a minor tweak to the guidance for one folder, that the whole thing already does everything evoke needs/requires, and wouldn’t need a single byte of build configuration anywhere.
I’m not trying to add any work, only trying to tune one rule, which would make that work.
If that’s not possible, then that’s okay too - I’ll just have to work around it locally.
I have no issues renaming the folder to tests.
The action would be to either have the examples/ folder compile to one executable, or to have each example in its own folder. Both would work.
Well for that I think evoke should be adapted and not Beman. Having many small stand alone example files is a pretty common pattern in open source and I wouldn’t want to prevent authors from using that pattern. Forcing a subdirectory per file doesn’t seem right – to pick one, in boost date-time there’s subdirectories in examples all with several files…