[bug #51338] Support for construction patterns by make functions

[Paul D. Smith]

Follow-up Comment #7, bug #51338 (project make):

> > it's basically a request to "please make things better".

> Yes, this is also true.

Well, I'm not personally interested in re-designing makefiles.  The makefile
syntax has a lot of problems: no one would suggest that it doesn't.  However,
make has existed for over 40 years and GNU make has existed at least 30 years.
 There are literally millions of makefiles currently being used, including
POSIX-compliant makefiles as well as GNU make-specific makefiles.

Make has its niche and I'm not interested in turning it into something
completely different in an effort to break it out of that niche: it has too
much baggage for that to be feasible.  Many alternatives to make have been
created by people frustrated with the limitations of makefiles; if you want a
build control language with a fundamentally different syntax I urge you to
look into the alternatives to make and see if one of them might work better
for you than makefiles.

In any event, the bug tracker is not the place for that discussion.

> Can the make function library be an update candidate?

If you mean, is it possible to define new built-in make functions then sure,
if they're sufficiently useful, needed, differentiated, etc.

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?51338>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/