[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
aesthetics of variable references and function calls
From: |
Robert P. J. Day |
Subject: |
aesthetics of variable references and function calls |
Date: |
Wed, 9 Jun 2004 12:13:45 -0400 (EDT) |
a picky point, but i've been curious about this feature and reading the
first part of chapter 8, i finally decided to ask about it.
i've noticed the alternative ways to refer to variables and function
calls:
$(whatever)
${whatever}
and, strictly for aesthetics, i standardized on using ${} for variable
references and $() for function calls, just given the historic precedent
set by the corresponding shell features. obviously, it's a matter of
personal taste, but i was curious about the advice in chapter 8:
"If the arguments themselves contain other function calls or variable
references, it is wisest to use the same kind of delimiters for all the
references; write `$(subst a,b,$(x))', not `$(subst a,b,${x})'. This is
because it is clearer, and because only one type of delimiter is matched
to find the end of the reference."
personally, given my standards, i'd use the second form, even if it meant
mixing and matching delimiters. i'm curious about what other folks use,
whether they care one way or the other, and if there are some make
"programming standards" that go beyond just "here's how make works."
i'm already perusing www.paulandlesley.org -- any other good sources for
make programming standards? thanks.
rday
p.s. would using mixed delimiters possibly identify syntax errors sooner
in the parsing process, if the delimiters don't match exactly?
- aesthetics of variable references and function calls,
Robert P. J. Day <=