Re: SCons performance investigations
Jonathon Reinhart <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.tools.scons.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAPFHKzefS9B3=O=Co0wynVxUVZjMoW6G4APcuXGbkLifZYRtAA@mail.gmail.com> |
Cloning the environment is for both reasons: We don't want the SConscript to pollute the environment but it is also free to tweak it (adding include paths, etc) without needing to Clone() it itself. On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Bill Deegan <bill-cJFiu+DHMVC5azolltMz9laTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> wrote: > A somewhat common use model is to create a configured Environment, and > then clone it to pass to a subordinate SConscript. > The only reason the clone is done is to prevent the subordinate SConscript > from polluting the environment. > > It is for this use that I was asking if a read-only Environment would be > useful. > > I'm also curious if in this case is it expected that the SConscript would > or should not modify the Environment? Is this a functional clone, or a > protective clone.. > _______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev