[Top][All Lists]

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

[bug #24509] doc for wildcard expansion in commands could be clearer

From: Martin Dorey
Subject: [bug #24509] doc for wildcard expansion in commands could be clearer
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:20:51 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv: Gecko/2008092417 Firefox/3.0.3


                 Summary: doc for wildcard expansion in commands could be
                 Project: make
            Submitted by: mdorey
            Submitted on: Thu 09 Oct 2008 06:20:47 PM GMT
                Severity: 3 - Normal
              Item Group: Documentation
                  Status: None
                 Privacy: Public
             Assigned to: None
             Open/Closed: Open
         Discussion Lock: Any
       Component Version: CVS
        Operating System: None
           Fixed Release: None



Harald Bergmann notes that in one place we say "the shell is responsible for
wildcard expansion" where later we say "[if you use *.o in a] command,
wildcard expansion *will* take place at that time" (my emphasis on *will*). 
Well, perhaps it *will*, perhaps it will not - that depends on the shell, as
noted earlier.  Further, any expansion doesn't take place at the time make
sees the command, which the above wording could reasonably be interpreted to
suggest, but only when make runs the shell and the shell runs the command.

On the mailing list, I suggested [

I'm not sure I've understood.  Perhaps rewording the second stanza like
this would address your concern?

"However, if you use the value $(objects) in a target or prerequisite,
wildcard expansion will take place there.  If you use the value $(objects) in
a command, the shell may perform wildcard expansion when the command runs."

] and the OP replied (privately) [

Hi Martin,

I am sure you did!
Your proposal is OK!

Best regards,


That proposal is not quite the same as the patch, from CVS, that I'm
attaching here, because the wording has seemingly moved on (using the word
"recipe" instead of "command") and because there's quoting in the original
that didn't survive the email, leading me to suggest my own $() "quoting",
above, which I abandon here in favor of the existing style.

I reproduce it as evidence that my first paragraph here is an accurate
summary of the OP's gripe.


File Attachments:

Date: Thu 09 Oct 2008 06:20:48 PM GMT  Name: make.texi.patch  Size: 855B  
By: mdorey



Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via/by Savannah

reply via email to

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