Follow-up Comment #3, bug #30370 (project make):
The major issue here, besides the effort involved of course, is finding a
syntax or format that is backward compatible, at least enough to avoid
breaking a lot of makefiles.
I also have to say that the request at stackoverflow.com and the request you
make below are actually fundamentally different; it appears you are looking
for a programmatic way to create large numbers of explicit rules, that is more
flexible than existing static pattern rules.
The request at stackoverflow.com appears to be looking for a much more
flexible method of defining pattern rules, where there can be multiple
patterns in both the target and prerequisite lists.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?30370>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
