On 03/14/2016 11:55 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
> include my.mk
>
> my.mk: ; @echo '$$(OBJDIR)/foo.o: foo.c' > $@
>
>
> And are you suggesting that we would treat $$(foo) differently than
> $$foo or $${foo} when expanding recipes?
>
>> For cases of recipe lines that do not have a '$(' construct, would there
>> actually be any difference at all, whether or not you change the expansion
>> style? I can't think of one...or maybe its just I can't think...at any rate,
>> your proposed change primarily impacts recipe lines with '$(...)' on them.
>> The rest, not so much...
>
> I'm not following this either...? The change I suggest would also
> change when ${eval ...} is expanded, just as it would $(eval ...) ...?
Okay, I see your point...there's no way to distinguish a literal '$' request
via "$$" versus a '$$( -> $(' do-me-at-runtime request.
So then my suggestion simply becomes this: "if" you implement the new
behavior, add a .dot-rule (such as .RUNTIMERECIPES or some such thing) to
allow the enabling/disabling of the new behavior. I don't even have a
preference for which would be default.
--
### Any similarity between my views and the truth is completely ###
### coincidental, except that they are endorsed by NO ONE ###
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
