>> Would use cases around the standard command "split" be concrete enough
>> for further clarification?
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_%28Unix%29
>
> No.
I am bit surprised that you find such a tool as an unclear example
at the moment.
I am using my Python script which I developed as a c
On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 00:08 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> * I need to split an input file into several smaller files.
> >
> > I don't see any way that $(eval ...) is needed or helpful for any of
> > those things.
>
> Can a make variable be set by this function within a recipe?
Yes, I've a
>> * I need to split an input file into several smaller files.
>
> I don't see any way that $(eval ...) is needed or helpful for any of
> those things.
Can a make variable be set by this function within a recipe?
>> I imagine that conditional evaluation of recipes will be possible somehow,
>> w
On Sun, 2015-01-18 at 22:28 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Without knowing exactly what you mean by "handling of rules with
> > multiple output files" I can't say for sure, but I think it's unlikely
> > that $(eval ...) can help with this.
>
> A lot of rules can come into the situation to fid
> Without knowing exactly what you mean by "handling of rules with
> multiple output files" I can't say for sure, but I think it's unlikely
> that $(eval ...) can help with this.
A lot of rules can come into the situation to fiddle with multiple
output files easily.
Examples:
* Specification of s
To home in on one key point here...
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 4:31 AM, SF Markus Elfring
wrote:
...
>>> Lines 183 - 203:
>>> define RESULT_CHECK
>>> for part in $(1); do \
>>> if test "x$$(< $$part)" != "x0"; then \
>>> $(PRINTF) "$$(TEXT3)" '$$part'; \
>>> exit 12; \
>>> fi; \
>>> done \
On Sun, 2015-01-18 at 20:50 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > The rule of thumb is, if you're using $(eval ...) inside a recipe,
> > you're doing something wrong.
>
> Which make function should be used for recipe generation instead then?
If you just want to expand inside a recipe, you can use $
>> The result should become components for recipes in my use case.
>
> As described before, this is not right. $(eval ...) is used to
> internalize make syntax. The result of expanding $(eval ...) is the
> _empty string_, so putting it in a recipe results in NOTHING being added
> to the recipe.
On Fri, 2015-01-16 at 12:52 -0800, Parke wrote:
> It appears that if there are no normal prerequisites, $< will ignore
> any order-only prerequisites.
>
> This is not the behavior I expected, and I could not find
> documentation describing this behavior.
I agree it should be documented explicitly
On Sun, 2015-01-18 at 20:38 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Try changing eval to info
>
> This introspection approach will not work in the moment
> when I stumble on the mentioned error messages.
Why will it not work? $(info ...) is a no-op statement. It can appear
anywhere and has zero eff
> The rule of thumb is, if you're using $(eval ...) inside a recipe,
> you're doing something wrong.
Which make function should be used for recipe generation instead then?
> $(eval ...) is for parsing MAKEFILE content.
Do recipes belong also to each make script?
> There is only one situation
> Try changing eval to info
This introspection approach will not work in the moment
when I stumble on the mentioned error messages.
> and then inspect the output to see if it makes sense as a makefile.
The result should become components for recipes in my use case.
> Write small test makefile
On Sun, 2015-01-18 at 13:07 -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> >> Then $(eval) is the Wrong Thing.
> >
> > I hope not …
>
> hope is not relevant... $(eval) _is_ the Wrong Thing(tm) for what you
> seems to want to do
The rule of thumb is, if you're using $(eval ...) inside a recipe,
you're doing som
With eval and call one can get confused quite easily. Try changing eval to
info and then inspect the output to see if it makes sense as a makefile.
Write small test makefiles that do small aspects of what you want and build
them up step by step until you get the result you want when you introduce
a
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 6:31 AM, SF Markus Elfring
wrote:
>
> Yes. - The evaluated variable should produce shell commands for recipes.
> I try to reuse it as a subfunction.
then use $(call -- or possibly $$(call, if you want to defer the call
to when the recipe get invoked)
not $(eval
>> It's j
On Sat, 2015-01-17 at 13:41 -0800, Philip Guenther wrote:
> Paul, I still think $(eval) should have been named
> $(stick-arm-in-woodchipper), to make it less seductive to people
> trying to layer imperative programming on the declarative nature of
> make.
I do agree with you in general. I see alm
>> I have added another tab character to a multi-line variable definition
>> which should be called for a specific evaluation.
>> Now I get a bit of more "progress indication" from a different error message.
>
> You're just trying random stuff and not paying attention!
I hope that I am becoming b
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:11 PM, SF Markus Elfring
wrote:
>> So that $(eval $(call GIBBERISH)) is wrong. Exactly *how* it's wrong
>> depends on what the $(call) is supposed to return. Currently you're
>> evaling something that doesn't look like a *STANDALONE* chunk of
>> Makefile, which results
18 matches
Mail list logo
