[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Order of expansion of recipe lines

From: Paul Smith
Subject: Re: Order of expansion of recipe lines
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 13:59:47 -0400

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 

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 :).

reply via email to

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