|
From: | Tim Murphy |
Subject: | Re: Quirk with rules producing multiple output files |
Date: | Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:31:07 +0100 |
On Thu Apr 4 16:17:58 2013, address@hidden (Paul Smith) wrote:Incidentally: other workflow/inference languages can express this
> This is expected behavior. A rule like:
>
> foo bar:
> @echo $@
>
> is exactly the same thing, to make, as writing:
>
> foo:
> @echo $@
> bar:
> @echo $@
>
> It's just a shorthand for writing a lot of identical rules; it does NOT
> mean that a single invocation if the rule will generate all three
> targets, which is what you are expecting.
distinction perfectly and still allow the resulting specifications to
be analyzed for proper termination (e.g. safe Petri nets, Datalog);
I'd love to know of an alternative to make that is based on such a
language, but it seems too much to ask for make to be extended
in this way.
--
Reinier
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |