No. You're mistake is to assume to know what he wants from looking at
his Makefile when you also know it's not working for him. You cannot
know what it is he wants when he apparently fails to express it in a
Makefile. So you're still only assuming. You base your assumption on the
fact that he puts the assignment into a prerequisite. I'm basing mine on
the assumption that he wants an identical behaviour for two different
targets.
It doesn't make your guess better (or worse) than mine. It's up to
Benjamin to tell us. It's not up to you nor me. So let's be fair here.
What I meant by saying that you didn't respond is that you didn't
respond to his initial e-mail containing his problem, but that you
hopped onto my response, second-guessed me, told me I'm wrong when
really it's just an opinion you're having, and yet still haven't given
any solution to what you think he wants to do. You've basically just
lectured him about what he cannot have.
That's why I gave him an example. It will help him to decide what it is
he wants and to be clearer about his intention. Perhaps you're right and
whatever he wants to do isn't going to work with make, but until then
it's best to keep an open mind, to stay positive and to try to find
something that might work for him and not tell each other whose wrong
and right.
Cheers
On 02/08/17 21:36, Paul Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 21:16 +0100, Sven C. Dack wrote:
I suggest you turn your attention towards him and ask him what he
wants.
The example in his question makes very clear what he wants: he wants a
pattern-specific variable assignment.
The solution you provided was not a pattern-specific variable
assignment. It was an abstracted way of writing a global variable
assignment.
My example does exactly what I say it does. It's just not your place
to tell me I'm wrong when you don't know what he wants his makefile
to do and so far haven't responded to him and only to me.
First, I did respond to him and I explained exactly why his example
wasn't working the way he anticipated.
Second, we don't need to ask him more about what he wants the makefile
to do, because the intent of the question is self-evident.
Finally, I didn't intend any attack. I'm just explaining how the
example you gave works and why it doesn't meet the OPs request. It's
not personal. Indeed in your original message it seemed like you
weren't familiar with pattern-specific variables so I provided more
context.
Or am I missing something? We are all adults here, right?
Is that a trick question?
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
