>> my_test_command?=cat
>>
>> define my_rule_demo=
>> name::=${1}
>> $${name:.in=.txt}: ${1}
>> $${my_test_command} $$< > $$@
>> endef
>>
>> $(eval $(call my_rule_demo,MOTD.in))
>
> Is there something wrong with it?
The answer depends on our views about approaches how customised
make functions should be safely written.
I sent it just as another follow-up in the hope to reduce a few
of our communication difficulties.
Can such tiny code examples help in this dialogue at all?
>> How would you like to clarify remaining details from other requests?
>
> I'm sorry but I've lost track of what issues have been resolved versus
> which are still outstanding. If you can provide an example and a
> specific question, we can attempt to respond.
I hope that there will no confusion occur with subjects from
my other recent discussion threads.
I am still curious about information I presented at 10:28.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-make/2017-06/msg00093.html
Repetition:
1. Will it make sense to extend any documentation for “substitution references”?
2. Can the distinction between appending suffixes and replacing them become
occasionally more relevant for better software build characteristics?
Another software extension:
How are the chances to assign aliases to numbered temporary variables?
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
