Re: notes about make docs p 3.5

[Dmitry]

> > It'll be very good to have some examples with explanations in the docs.
> Maybe so.  Concrete suggestions are easy to discuss, like:

I think this example would saved me a lot of time.
make -f mkfile
content of mkfile:

all:
        @echo total $(MAKE_RESTARTS) MAKE_RESTARTS

mkfile: force
        [ x$(MAKE_RESTARTS) = x3 ] || touch mkfile ; sleep 1

force: ;


> > 1) make starts with a clean slate-> make starts with a clean sTate
> The "clean slate" idiom seems more natural to this native English speaker.  
> Would "starts from scratch" present the same problem?

I'm sure that most people read documentation not for English
improvement, but just to understand how things work.
So for me (and I bet  for thousands others ) it'll be better if
documentation would be written as simple as possible.
What about "clean slate"  thank you, my English is a little better now.


> > In this discussion, the man says that this is no longer relevant.
> Perhaps we could agree that SCCS and RCS are now a minority interest.  It 
> does seem unlikely that other systems will get similar support added to the 
> default rules, in which case the documentation could mention SCCS and RCS 
> specifically without becoming a maintenance burden.  Reading the original 
> discussion, though, perhaps the more useful clarification would have been to 
> make it explicit that Make has default, built-in make rules, the ones from 
> https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Catalogue-of-Rules.

Sorry, perhaps I don't exactly understand last sequence, but if I
understand right - you say about adding a link to
https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Catalogue-of-Rules
For me  (as a  nube in make) would be good something like this:
Automatic creation of makefile currently possible from only RCS / SCCS
systems ( more about "Built-In Rules" here -
https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Catalogue-of-Rules ).

On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:39 AM Martin Dorey
<Martin.Dorey@hitachivantara.com> wrote:
>
> > It'l be very good to have some examples with explanations in the docs.
>
> Maybe so.  Concrete suggestions are easy to discuss, like:
>
> > 1) make starts with a clean slate-> make starts with a clean sTate
>
> The "clean slate" idiom seems more natural to this native English speaker.  
> Would "starts from scratch" present the same problem?
>
> > In this discussion, the man says that this is no longer relevant.
>
> Perhaps we could agree that SCCS and RCS are now a minority interest.  It 
> does seem unlikely that other systems will get similar support added to the 
> default rules, in which case the documentation could mention SCCS and RCS 
> specifically without becoming a maintenance burden.  Reading the original 
> discussion, though, perhaps the more useful clarification would have been to 
> make it explicit that Make has default, built-in make rules, the ones from 
> https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Catalogue-of-Rules.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bug-make <bug-make-bounces+martin.dorey=hds.com@gnu.org> on behalf of 
> Dmitry <dmitry1976@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 09:51
> To: bug-make@gnu.org <bug-make@gnu.org>
> Subject: notes about make docs p 3.5
>
> ***** EXTERNAL EMAIL *****
>
> Hello, I'm reading GNU make docs and had troubles with understanding
> paragraph 3.5 .
> These are some problems which I encountered:
>
> 1) make starts with a clean slate-> make starts with a clean sTate
>
> 2) It was difficult to understand how make remade makefiles without examples.
> There is discussion when peoples explain me what's going on.
> It'l be very good to have some examples with explanations in the docs.
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstackoverflow.com%2Fquestions%2F65058553%2Fhow-makefiles-are-remade-dont-understand-official-documentation%2F65061327&amp;data=04%7C01%7CMartin.Dorey%40hitachivantara.com%7C83dec436f92a4006439808d8955fbc5b%7C18791e1761594f52a8d4de814ca8284a%7C0%7C0%7C637423585715337014%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=nneTzpEm8zVuu9UnGX4%2BRfNkCNiErdp95JnClTNLfLM%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
> 3) It's absolutely unclear  this clause
>
> > If you do not specify any makefiles to be read with ‘-f’ or ‘--file’ 
> > options, make will try the default makefile names; see What Name to Give 
> > Your Makefile. Unlike makefiles explicitly requested with ‘-f’ or ‘--file’ 
> > options, make is not certain that these makefiles should exist. However, if 
> > a default makefile does not exist but can be created by running make rules, 
> > you probably want the rules to be run so that the makefile can be used.
>
> In this discussion, the man says that this is no longer relevant.
> Perhaps it must be deleted or some explanations must be added.
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstackoverflow.com%2Fquestions%2F65071351%2Fegg-and-chicken-problem-when-auto-generate-default-makefile%2F65072730&amp;data=04%7C01%7CMartin.Dorey%40hitachivantara.com%7C83dec436f92a4006439808d8955fbc5b%7C18791e1761594f52a8d4de814ca8284a%7C0%7C0%7C637423585715337014%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=bL4YGGM3AiNlMG211B75ZtJ8dLrMMzWKD6HXvW0hSRA%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
> Respect,
> --
>   Dmitry
>


-- 
--
  Dmitry