[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Idea: Allow $(name ...) as an abbrevation of $(call name ....)

From: Masahiro Yamada
Subject: Re: Idea: Allow $(name ...) as an abbrevation of $(call name ....)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:16:56 +0900

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:58 AM David A. Wheeler <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 18:18:15 +0100, Tim Murphy <address@hidden> wrote:
> > builtin functions can check their arguments to some extent. Interesting to
> > wonder if user defined ones can.
> > we don't even have $(equals) or a way to know the number of arguments that
> > were supplied or any mathematical operations with which to compare. So when
> > something is called wongly it charges on to the end, evaluating blindly to
> > who knows what and we can spend hours trying to tease out the cause of a
> > missing compiler option .... but.....we are focused on the saving of a tiny
> > bit of typing.
> It's not the typing, it's the reading.  When 20% of the lines makes a 
> user-defined
> function call (my situation), simplifying the function call matters.
> Equals and math operations can be implemented using $(shell ...).
> If you think more are needed, that sounds like a proposal, go ahead and make 
> it.
> There's no conflict between this syntax proposal & adding more built-in 
> functions.

This is a matter of cost of
native functions vs $(shell ...) .

Linux kernel build system highly exploits recursive building.

So, I avoid using $(shell ...) in the recursively-invoked Makefiles.

Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]