[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Questionable line number in a message "missing separator"?
From: |
Paul Smith |
Subject: |
Re: Questionable line number in a message "missing separator"? |
Date: |
Sun, 18 Jan 2015 11:40:15 -0500 |
On Sat, 2015-01-17 at 13:41 -0800, Philip Guenther wrote:
> Paul, I still think $(eval) should have been named
> $(stick-arm-in-woodchipper), to make it less seductive to people
> trying to layer imperative programming on the declarative nature of
> make.
I do agree with you in general. I see almost as many mis-uses of
$(eval ...) (and even $(shell ...)!) as I do correct uses. People seem
to jump right into it and try to use it for everything before they have
a solid understanding of when it's appropriate.
Not sure what to do about it. Old adages about sharp knives and power
vs. responsibility come to mind...
- Re: Conditional recipe execution, (continued)
- Re: Conditional recipe execution, SF Markus Elfring, 2015/01/23
- Re: Conditional recipe execution, Paul Smith, 2015/01/23
- Re: Conditional recipe execution, SF Markus Elfring, 2015/01/23
- Re: Conditional recipe execution, Paul Smith, 2015/01/23
- Re: Conditional recipe execution, SF Markus Elfring, 2015/01/24
- Re: Extensions for make file parsing?, SF Markus Elfring, 2015/01/24
- Re: Challenges around the combination of functions "call" and "eval", SF Markus Elfring, 2015/01/28
- Re: Challenges around the combination of functions "call" and "eval", Paul Smith, 2015/01/28
- Re: Conditional recipe execution, SF Markus Elfring, 2015/01/31
- Re: Difficulties from the combination of functions "call" and "eval", Philip Guenther, 2015/01/18
- Re: Questionable line number in a message "missing separator"?,
Paul Smith <=