Re: Shell comments in make rules

2010-11-16 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On Tuesday 16 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 08:28:02PM CET: > > On Tuesday 16 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 08:11:11PM CET: > > > > On Tuesday 16 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhue

Re: Shell comments in make rules

2010-11-16 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 08:28:02PM CET: > On Tuesday 16 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 08:11:11PM CET: > > > On Tuesday 16 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > > > > > But even if it doesn't, shouldn't

Re: Shell comments in make rules

2010-11-16 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On Tuesday 16 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 08:11:11PM CET: > > On Tuesday 16 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > > > But even if it doesn't, shouldn't the comment in question be consired > > > > a shell comment anyway? If that

Re: Shell comments in make rules (was: backcompat5.test: avoid '##'-style comments inside recipe commands)

2010-11-16 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 08:11:11PM CET: > On Tuesday 16 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > But even if it doesn't, shouldn't the comment in question be consired > > > a shell comment anyway? If that's not the case, well, I'd regard this > > > behaviour as a se