Re: [bug #33138] .PARLLELSYNC enhancement with patch

[Frank Heckenbach]

Paul Smith wrote:

> On Thu, 2013-09-19 at 14:47 +0200, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
> > > Hm.  This is pretty contrived.  I have a hard time imagining a real
> > > makefile wanting to do this for a good reason.  However, it does
> > seem
> > > that the solution may be simple enough.
> > 
> > I also doubt someone would do it intentionally, but of course, there
> > could be a $(shell) command that writes some error or warning to
> > stderr (perhaps only under certain circumstances, not expected by
> > the original author). Then again, this situation may be so rare that
> > it might not warrant extra effort.
> 
> I've never understood why someone would use $(shell ...) in a recipe...
> I mean, the recipe will be run in the shell!!

True. Though what about shells such as the Dos one which don't have
something like `...` AFAIR? Also, a slight difference is with `...`
the echoed command shows the sub-command, whereas with $(shell) it
shows its output. Not saying either one is better in general, but
perhaps depending on the situation someone might prefer one or the
other.

FWIW, the way I came across it now wasn't actually from my own usage
in a Makefile, just by thorough testing of the features.