> What Philip is saying (and I agree 100%) is that you provide the above
> example which is excellent and helpful and allows us to see exactly what
> you're doing. Thank you for that.
I was also curious in this case how the interest will evolve to clarify
the shown construction of make rules.
> But then, you ask questions which are abstract and require a lot of
> effort on our part to understand.
I can follow this concern to some degree.
> For example:
>
>> 2. The specification “$$(name)” is working. Would it make sense to avoid
>> such a variable reference there?
>> Unfortunately, the simple specification “$(1)” does not work in the way
>> I would expect for the selection of a single file as a dependency.
>> Would you like to explain this software behaviour?
>
> This seems to say that when you tried to use something different than
> the $$(name) reference above, it didn't work the way you expected.
This interpretation is correct.
> However, you provide no information on what the "something different"
> that you tried was, how it worked, or how you expected it to work.
It seems then I chose a wording from which you would not pick
the essential information up directly.
> In programming (and makefiles) everything is about the details.
I am used to this view as I am trying to be a professional software
developer for a while.
> The statement "I would expect for the selection of a single file as a
> dependency" is, at best, hard to understand (personally I didn't
> understand it).
So I try again to express my needs a bit more in make code.
Example MOTD.make:
my_test_command?=cat
define my_rule=
${1:.in=.txt}: ${1}
$${my_test_command} $$< > $$@
endef
$(eval $(call my_rule,MOTD.in))
elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Bau> rm MOTD.txt; echo 'Test!' > MOTD.in && make -f
../MOTD.make && cat MOTD.txt
cat MOTD.in > MOTD.txt
Test!
This result is fine. Please try the following approach out again.
Example MOTD2.make:
my_test_command?=cat
define my_broken_rule=
name::=${1}
${name:.in=.txt}: ${1}
$${my_test_command} $$< > $$@
endef
$(eval $(call my_broken_rule,MOTD.in))
elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Bau> rm MOTD.txt && LANG=C make -f
~/Projekte/MOTD2.make
make: *** No targets. Stop.
How do you think about this test result?
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
