<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Tyler Roscoe <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tyler@cryptio.net">tyler@cryptio.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 02:30:36PM -0500, Robert Dailey wrote:<br>
> The problem is that there is no central location for this data. I was<br>
> referencing the useful<br>
</div>> variables<<a href="http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_Useful_Variables" target="_blank">http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_Useful_Variables</a>>page on the<br>
<div class="im">> CMake Wiki, and no mention of MSVC_VERSION existed.<br>
<br>
</div>You don't think <a href="http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help/cmake2.6docs.html" target="_blank">http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help/cmake2.6docs.html</a> counts<br>
as a "central location"?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>For the most part, I'd say that documentation page covers 98% of all the information I've had to find, which is absolutely wonderful. This particular bit of information happens to fall into that remaining 2%. The "Useful variables" page contains information that the official documentation does not, such as any mention of the MSVC90 variable. I'm simply pointing it out as a minor issue and hopefully someone will merge the information some day.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">It's even available from the command line as<br>
cmake --help.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am aware of this, but why bother when it is available online?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
The Useful Variables page is, by definition, not exhaustive.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>It doesn't have to be, it just have to have good coverage of the topic(s) it was designed to cover. I like that CMake has a Wiki, I think it suits it perfectly, but the fact that we have some information on the Wiki and some of it not on the wiki (Hence the official documentation) makes it slightly less intuitive than it could be. I think it would be great to either have every bit of documentation exclusively on the wiki OR have it exclusively on the official documentation page. I am very grateful that CMake has documentation in the first place, regardless of where it is placed. It would most certainly be a bigger issue if it didn't exist. However, while the documentation is great, that doesn't mean it couldn't use some improvement.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Anyway, I was just trying to be helpful by pointing out the mixup in the documentation.</div><div><br></div><div>Again, thank you for your help.</div></div>