RE: Pattern Specific Variable Limitation

[Matthew Von-Maszewski]

We are in agreement.  I do not like it, but I do understand.

Thanks again for the time,
Matthew


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul D. Smith [mailto:address@hidden Behalf Of
Paul D. Smith
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 11:09 AM
To: Matthew Von-Maszewski
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: RE: Pattern Specific Variable Limitation


%% "Matthew Von-Maszewski" <address@hidden> writes:

  mv> You and I could argue all day about interpretations of "equally
  mv> applicable" and "order in which pattern rules appear".  You read
  mv> this a firm requirement definition.  I read it as fuzzy.  But the
  mv> bottom line is what is in the code.

Well, I think "order in which pattern rules appear in the makefile" is
pretty unambiguous.  I do agree that "equally applicable rules" could be
somewhat open to interpretation, and perhaps should be clarified.

However, this cannot be changed: I know for a fact that there are many
makefiles depending on this ordering behavior for pattern rules.

The pattern rules ordering for target-specific patterns is less set,
since they're so new, so it's not as clear-cut.  However, as I mentioned
before, I think it would in general be confusing if pattern rules and
target-specific patterns used different matching methods.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
 Paul D. Smith <address@hidden>          Find some GNU make tips at:
 http://www.gnu.org                      http://www.paulandlesley.org/gmake/
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad
Scientist