Re: Order of expansion of recipe lines

[Paul Smith]

On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 11:07 -0700, Zoltan wrote:
> Not exactly escaping '$' with '$$'.  From your example of $(info ...), I'm
> actually suggesting to escape '$(' with '$$('.  So not quite the same thing at
> all.  And this is already implemented, and already "explained," so no extra
> work there.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.  Can you provide an
example of what you mean?  How would this rule, for example:

  all:
          @echo 'variable $$(foo) is bar'

which currently prints:

  variable $(foo) is bar

fare under the change you're suggesting?  Or a bit more realistically:

  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 ...) ...?