[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: suggestion: new make function

From: Lawrence Ibarria
Subject: RE: suggestion: new make function
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:03:59 -0700


What is the process to complete the discussion about the addition of this 
functionality to make?

I would like to see it (I like the suggestions proposed in the thread). It 
would help me greatly and it should not force anyone to change their current 
makefiles, it is just an extension for those who want to use it. 

Thank you, 

  -- Lawrence

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:bug-make-
> address@hidden On Behalf Of David Boyce
> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 2:17 PM
> To: Tim Murphy
> Cc: address@hidden; address@hidden
> Subject: Re: suggestion: new make function
> I agree with Tim and with Tim's suggested API, in particular
> "withfile". Involving the shell in something as basic and inherently
> portable as writing to a file opens up a world of portability issues,
> in addition to the performance and readability problems mentioned.
> Given that some platforms (Windows) have ARG_MAX limits and have
> adopted "command files" as the official workaround, a command line
> generator (which is fundamentally all make does) should have the
> native capability to create those kinds of command lines. IMHO.
> In general there seems to be a curious resistance to adding functions,
> implying fear of a slippery slope such that the next thing you know
> make will have hundreds of functions. I don't see that happening - it
> seems to me the list of potential new functions adding basic, core
> make functionality is pretty limited. Right now there are viable
> proposals for two path-cleanup functions plus this one. There may be a
> few others but I suspect the number of proposals that will ever pass
> the core functionality test is less than 10, maybe a lot less, so I
> think a strong case can be made to just let them in and keep make a
> simple, standalone, single-file program which doesn't require inline
> Lisp and complex dynamic loader semantics and so on. Or perhaps I'm
> wrong and make would add a couple of new functions per release,
> forever. How bad would that be?
> David Boyce
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-make mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

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