[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: problem: unitialized +=
From: |
Alexandre Oliva |
Subject: |
Re: problem: unitialized += |
Date: |
18 Apr 2001 05:26:43 -0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090002 (Oort Gnus v0.02) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) |
On Apr 18, 2001, Akim Demaille <address@hidden> wrote:
> Unfortunately it is quite unrealistic wrt the implementation: Automake
> values are read _after_ Makefile.am was. Supporting this would be
> hard, and I am not sure it would bring really bonus.
How about this: when you find FOO += bar but FOO is not initialized,
replace it with FOO = @FOO@ bar. It would probably cover the most
interesting cases, no? Hmm... Not the case of DEFS :-(
How about adding a mark, such as @+FOO@, that you'd replace with
the contents automake would set by default, when it gets to the point
of setting the defaults?
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer address@hidden, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp address@hidden, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
- Re: problem: uninstall-am in makefile with no install targets and non-GNU make., (continued)
- Re: problem: multiple definitions, Robert Collins, 2001/04/19
- Re: problem: unitialized +=, Akim Demaille, 2001/04/11
- Re: problem: unitialized +=, Akim Demaille, 2001/04/17
- Re: problem: unitialized +=, Akim Demaille, 2001/04/17
- Re: problem: unitialized +=, Alexandre Oliva, 2001/04/17
- Re: problem: unitialized +=, Akim Demaille, 2001/04/18
- Re: problem: unitialized +=,
Alexandre Oliva <=
- Re: problem: unitialized +=, Akim Demaille, 2001/04/18
- Re: problem: unitialized +=, Robert Collins, 2001/04/18
- Re: problem: unitialized +=, Akim Demaille, 2001/04/18
- Re: problem: unitialized +=, Robert Collins, 2001/04/18
- Re: problem: uninstall-am in makefile with no install targets and non-GNU make., Robert Collins, 2001/04/15