We are in agreement. I do not like it, but I do understand.
Thanks again for the time,
Matthew
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul D. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Paul D. Smith
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 11:09 AM
To: Matthew Von-Maszewski
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Pattern Specific Variable Limitation
%% "Matthew Von-Maszewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
mv> You and I could argue all day about interpretations of "equally
mv> applicable" and "order in which pattern rules appear". You read
mv> this a firm requirement definition. I read it as fuzzy. But the
mv> bottom line is what is in the code.
Well, I think "order in which pattern rules appear in the makefile" is
pretty unambiguous. I do agree that "equally applicable rules" could be
somewhat open to interpretation, and perhaps should be clarified.
However, this cannot be changed: I know for a fact that there are many
makefiles depending on this ordering behavior for pattern rules.
The pattern rules ordering for target-specific patterns is less set,
since they're so new, so it's not as clear-cut. However, as I mentioned
before, I think it would in general be confusing if pattern rules and
target-specific patterns used different matching methods.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at:
http://www.gnu.org http://www.paulandlesley.org/gmake/
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad
Scientist
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
