[cmake-developers] VS Toolchain Support

[Olmstead, Don]

For a first pass it might be best to just follow what is in cmIDEFlagTable as this would largely be unintrusive and just get the architecture there.

That would look like

{  
   "library":[  
      {  
         "name":"ErrorReporting",
         "command":"ERRORREPORT:PROMPT",
         "comment":"PromptImmediately",
         "value":"PromptImmediately"
      },
      {  
         "name":"ErrorReporting",
         "command":"ERRORREPORT:QUEUE",
         "comment":"Queue For Next Login",
         "value":"QueueForNextLogin"
      }
      ..
   ]
}

Where flags would be optional.

Another option would actually group the values together.

{  
   "library":{  
      "ErrorReporting":{  
         "values":[  
            {  
               "command":"ERRORREPORT:PROMPT",
               "comment":"PromptImmediately",
               "value":"PromptImmediately"
            },
            {  
               "command":"ERRORREPORT:QUEUE",
               "comment":"Queue For Next Login",
               "value":"QueueForNextLogin"
            }
         ]
      }
   }
}

Again flags would be optional.

If there are not multiple values then it would look something like this.

{  
   "library":{  
      "AdditionalLibraryDirectories":{  
         "command":"LIBPATH:",
         "comment":"Additional Library Directories",
         "value":"",
         "flags":[  
            "UserValue",
            "SemicolonAppendable"
         ]
      }
   }
}

You could also do instead of flags a type. So "type": "StringList" which would then map the flags properly.

I'm up for whatever you think would be best. The first is certainly the most verbose but has a direct mapping. The rest end up requiring more of a transformation to get it into the current format.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad King [mailto:brad.king at kitware.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 11:31 AM
To: Olmstead, Don <Don.Olmstead at sony.com>
Cc: cmake-developers at cmake.org
Subject: Re: [cmake-developers] VS Toolchain Support

On 08/24/2016 02:25 PM, Olmstead, Don wrote:
> I would be interested in the JSON format. Do you have any opinions on 
> what that would look like or would you just like to see some 
> implementation before proceding?

Please propose a sample format.  Just take a few entries from one of the existing flag tables and manually convert it to some kind of JSON array of objects to post here for discussion.

Thanks,
-Brad