Re: Implementing notrans_man_MANS

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Peter Breitenlohner wrote on Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 01:27:05PM CET:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
>>>> Also, the whole thing would probably be a lot more readable if the
>>>> ?NOTR?/?DOTR? prefixes vanished and were replaced by full rules, wrapped
>>>> in `if %?NOTRANS_MANS%'.  That would be a better name for NOTR, and
>>>> since it would then only appear a couple of times, it could be longer
>>>> without pain, too.
>>
>>> Do you mean something like:
>>>     install-man: install-man1 install-notrans-man1
>>>     install-man1: trans_DEPENDENCIES
>>>             trans_RULES
>>>     install-notrans-man1: notrans_DEPENDENCIES
>>>             notrans_RULES
>>
>> No.

> what then? Maybe this:
>
> if only trans
>       install-man1: trans_DEPENDENCIES
>               trans_RULES
> as before, if only notrans
>       install-man1: notrans_DEPENDENCIES
>               notrans_RULES
> or if both are present
>       install-man1: trans_DEPENDENCIES notrans_DEPENDENCIES
>               trans_RULES
>               notrans_RULES
>
> Pro: much simpler to read
> Con: duplication of code, harder to maintain
>
> or still something else. If so please indicate what.

Oh sorry, I was in a hurry and not thinking.  What I meant was that
while you can't wrap arbitrary lines ending in backslash-newline in `if
%?NOTRANS_MANS%/else/endif', you can do so at a finer grainage than
whole rules: it's just that it won't work after lines ending in
backslash.

To some extent this is independent of the question you ask about the
rule target names: whether you interleave trans and notrans in the .am
file and whether you give trans and notrans different target names need
not be dealt with at the same time.  So please for now leave you patch
as is, but only change all those NOTR/DOTR prefixes to use if/else/endif
(which includes a few lines of duplication in the .am file).

Clearer now?  If not, then I guess I can also patch that later.

Thanks,
Ralf