[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Order of expansion of recipe lines

From: Zoltan
Subject: Re: Order of expansion of recipe lines
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:16:54 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.39

On 03/14/2016 11:55 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
>   include my.mk
>   my.mk: ; @echo '$$(OBJDIR)/foo.o: foo.c' > $@
> And are you suggesting that we would treat $$(foo) differently than
> $$foo or $${foo} when expanding recipes?
>> For cases of recipe lines that do not have a '$(' construct, would there
>> actually be any difference at all, whether or not you change the expansion
>> style?  I can't think of one...or maybe its just I can't think...at any rate,
>> your proposed change primarily impacts recipe lines with '$(...)' on them.
>> The rest, not so much...
> I'm not following this either...?  The change I suggest would also
> change when ${eval ...} is expanded, just as it would $(eval ...) ...?

Okay, I see your point...there's no way to distinguish a literal '$' request
via "$$" versus a '$$( -> $(' do-me-at-runtime request.

So then my suggestion simply becomes this:  "if" you implement the new
behavior, add a .dot-rule (such as .RUNTIMERECIPES or some such thing) to
allow the enabling/disabling of the new behavior.  I don't even have a
preference for which would be default.

     ###  Any similarity between my views and the truth is completely ###
     ###     coincidental, except that they are endorsed by NO ONE    ###

reply via email to

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