[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnulib] suggestion

From: Jim Meyering
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnulib] suggestion
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:01:14 +0200

>> It is better to use $@ whenever possible,
>> to reduce duplication (ease maintenance).
> But in VPATH builds, $@ can also refer to a file in $srcdir,
> if it already exists there, right? And here it is mandatory that
> stdbool.h is created in $builddir. This minimizes the risk of
> totally screwed builds if the $srcdir is not completely clean
> and a VPATH build is attempted.

That is a _potential_ problem, but I think it's counterproductive to
degrade the maintainability of all such rules in an attempt to coddle
the few users who end up with such a messed up configuration.

>> As for the `-t' vs. `t' suffix, I don't care much,
>> as long as we're consistent, but do have a slight preference
>> for the shorter one.
> Whereas I have a preference for the longer one (my usual anti-perl
> attitude, you know :-)).

I hope I haven't given the impression that short names
are somehow associated with Perl.

My preference for the shorter suffix is based on the principle
that such infrastructure should be as unobtrusive as possible.
The longer we make the suffix, the shorter the maximum length
of a portable file name.  Think of the file systems for which
the maximum file name length is 14.  I'd rather the infrastructure
leave 13 than merely 12 bytes to work with.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]