Paul Smith (16 May 2019 17:37)
> The only idea I have for "legitimate real-world use" is something like:
>
> foo:
> do some things
> $(DO-MORE)
>
> where DO-MORE is some boilerplate macro defined elsewhere, that wants
> to perform some checking and invoke $(error ...) if badness is
> detected. It might be relying on the entire recipe being expanded up-
> front to do that error checking before any part of the recipe is
> invoked.
I take it your $(DO-MORE) *not only* does some checking and possible
reporting of problems, but also expands (before "do some things" is run)
to a command that'll be run after "do some things". It seems a rather
contrived case; but, as you noted, folk do some fairly contrived things.
Especially in make-files.
> I just really hate lots of tweakable options: you get an exponential
> increase in testing requirements etc.
Aye.
Perhaps make the change and (later) add the option if there are
screams of agony when it lands,
Eddy.
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
