Follow-up Comment #5, bug #51338 (project make):
> I suggest to give some make rule combinations (pairs, trios, …) another
look.
That doesn't constitute a specific design. You've provided an example of
makefile syntax that works today, in your initial description. Clearly you
are not satisfied with that since you opened this bug report, but I can't tell
exactly what aspects of the current capabilities you want to be different.
After the example you point to a number of general concepts (which are not
clearly related) and then suggest we "give them another look". That's not a
design, it's basically a request to "please make things better".
When I say a specific design I mean, one or more actual examples of a new
makefile syntax that would work better for your purposes than the syntax which
is currently available, and a description of precisely how the examples should
be interpreted. I'm not suggesting you implement it, or even that it be
completely consistent. Indeed I don't recommend you spend a huge amount of
time on it because unless it's many times better than what we have already I
doubt it would be acceptable; as I mentioned before there's a huge cost to
adding new features so they must be more than just a slightly different way to
get the same results.
But without SOME sort of concrete example of what you are thinking about, we
are at an impasse.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?51338>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
