Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Paul Smith <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 07:47:09 -0400
> 
> The way the user experiences the -Ojob option's results is that the
> output of every line of each recipe is dumped as soon as that line is
> complete.

I would suggest -Oline or -Ocommand for this.  "Job" is not
necessarily recognizable by users of Make for what we mean when we
talk about that.

> The issue of how -Otarget handles recursive make is, IMO, a detail
> necessitated by the architecture of recursive make invocations.  I don't
> know that it's feasible to reflect that detail in the name.

It is a detail that IMO significantly qualifies the "target" part.  In
particular, targets that include little or nothing except a recursive
invocations will be entirely exempt from this "target" scope.

> To me -Omake is the most problematic.  -Omakefile is not much better; in
> fact it might be worse (after all you can and often do invoke a
> recursive make on the same makefile).  It would be nice to be more clear
> about the fact it applies only to recursive make invocations.  Something
> like -Osubmake might be more accurate, except that I don't think we use
> the term "sub-make" in the documentation: we use "recursive make".  Is
> -Orecursive better?

Yes, I think -Orecursive is better.