Re: Order of expansion of recipe lines

[Paul Smith]

On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 10:36 -0700, Zoltan wrote:
> I don't particularly see a reason to change current behavior, but if 
> you want to, how about implementing it like a "delayed" expansion 
> except for recipe lines, so instead of $(...whatever....), it would 
> be written $$(...whatever...) in order to not not break backward 
> compatibility and still allow new uses as you describe.  Sort of like 
> in .SECONDEXPANSION conceptually, and could maybe even be tied to 
> .SECONDEXPANSION if needed.

Ouch!  The escaping of "$" with "$$" is used EVERYWHERE in recipes, and
this would break all instances of that by doing a double-expansion.

Even if we managed to work out a way around this somehow, trying to
explain the expansion rules would be a nightmare.  It's already the
most difficult part of make for new users to grasp.

Nope.  As far as I'm concerned either things stay as they are or they
change to the new method, and that's it.  If someone can provide me
with a compelling reason for the current behavior, which would include
an in-use configuration which relies on it, then the discussion is over
and we'll leave things as they are.

If no one can come up with a good reason for the current behavior, then
I'll leave the possibility open :).