On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 12:14 +0200, Reinier Post wrote: > > It's just a shorthand for writing a lot of identical rules; it does NOT > > mean that a single invocation if the rule will generate all three > > targets, which is what you are expecting. > > Incidentally: other workflow/inference languages can express this > distinction perfectly and still allow the resulting specifications to > be analyzed for proper termination (e.g. safe Petri nets, Datalog); > I'd love to know of an alternative to make that is based on such a > language, but it seems too much to ask for make to be extended > in this way.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "this distinction", but GNU make already supports multi-target generators with pattern rules, as mentioned in the part of the email you clipped. So the basic infrastructure exists. There were proof-of-concept patches floating around to support it for explicit rules as well. Really the trickiest part is the user interface (makefile syntax): it must be backward-compatible with existing makefiles, or at least be sure to break virtually none of them. _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
