<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Michael Hertling <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mhertling@online.de">mhertling@online.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">...which shows that 10718 is still alive. ;-)</div></div>
<br>
Hi Philip,<br>
<br>
what's your opinion on this topic, in particular<br>
<br>
- swapping loops and the required effort, the related risks<br>
and the expected results,<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>I'd like to know if there is a use case for the existing behavior. I don't really have an opinion if this should be enabled optionally or by default (or via policy) yet.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
- find modules with hardcoded magic numbers and the continuous<br>
need for maintenance,<br>
- globbing or regex support for FIND_{PROGRAM,LIBRARY,PATH,FILE}?<br>
<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>I've griped about this for a while. So much that I even started working on a patch for the issue back when I had some free time last year (but never finished). What little time I have these days to spend on CMake I choose to spend on supporting find modules, so if anyone wants to take this over... It was one approach for how to solve the version number problem...</div>
<div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=8396">http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=8396</a></div><div><br></div></div>-- <br>Philip Lowman<br>