On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:58 AM David A. Wheeler <dwhee...@dwheeler.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 18:18:15 +0100, Tim Murphy <tnmur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > builtin functions can check their arguments to some extent. Interesting to > > wonder if user defined ones can. > > we don't even have $(equals) or a way to know the number of arguments that > > were supplied or any mathematical operations with which to compare. So when > > something is called wongly it charges on to the end, evaluating blindly to > > who knows what and we can spend hours trying to tease out the cause of a > > missing compiler option .... but.....we are focused on the saving of a tiny > > bit of typing. > > It's not the typing, it's the reading. When 20% of the lines makes a > user-defined > function call (my situation), simplifying the function call matters. > > Equals and math operations can be implemented using $(shell ...). > If you think more are needed, that sounds like a proposal, go ahead and make > it. > There's no conflict between this syntax proposal & adding more built-in > functions.
This is a matter of cost of native functions vs $(shell ...) . Linux kernel build system highly exploits recursive building. So, I avoid using $(shell ...) in the recursively-invoked Makefiles. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
