[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: inconsistency of 'emptiness'?
From: |
gk |
Subject: |
Re: inconsistency of 'emptiness'? |
Date: |
Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:17:24 -0800 |
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your input.
At 04:29 PM 1/28/2003 -0500, Paul D. Smith wrote:
Can you please summarize your ultimate findings into a bug report and
submit it on the Savannah site for me? That way I'll be able to
remember it. I'll see if I can determine why make is not handling the
backslash consistently.
Sure. Will do.
I'm leaning towards not fixing the initial issue you reported, where:
$ make FOO=' '
results in FOO being empty rather than containing a single space,
because to fix that would mean that the behavior of this:
$ make 'FOO = bar'
which currently works "as you'd expect" from a make variable setting and
gives a value of "bar" instead of " bar", would change incompatibly.
That sounds reasonable to me.
But, I do wonder about the backslash issue.
Yeah. That is the only really weird thing.
It seems like a reasonable thing would probably just be for make to split
the parameter 'FOO= value or \ $$whatever' on the '=' and assign the
makefile variable FOO to everything on the right of '=', IN THE MAKEFILE
CONTEXT - exactly as what would happen in a makefile if the exact same
string value were assigned: i.e., leading space gets lost and any backslash
in value is assigned to FOO, any makefile variables like $$whatever get
expanded, as happens now. I think that would be very consistent.
- Greg Keraunen
http://www.xmake.org
http://www.xmlmake.com
- inconsistency of 'emptiness'?, gk, 2003/01/23
- Re: inconsistency of 'emptiness'?, gk, 2003/01/23
- Re: inconsistency of 'emptiness'?, Der Herr Hofrat, 2003/01/28
- Re: inconsistency of 'emptiness'?, gk, 2003/01/28
- Re: inconsistency of 'emptiness'?, Der Herr Hofrat, 2003/01/28
- Re: inconsistency of 'emptiness'?, gk, 2003/01/28
- Re: inconsistency of 'emptiness'?, gk, 2003/01/28
- Re: inconsistency of 'emptiness'?, gk, 2003/01/28
Re: inconsistency of 'emptiness'?, gk, 2003/01/28