Follow-up Comment #12, bug #57962 (project make):
[comment #7 comment #7:]
> I verified this fix was applied to gnulib, so it will be present in the next
release of GNU make. Thanks!
It seems that gnulib fixed findprog but not findprog_in that GNU make uses so
the bug is still present.
_
> 5 + (2 * 9 / (7 + 5 + 4)) * (1024 * 1024) / 19
>
> becomes:
>
> $(math +, 5 $(math /, $(math *, $(math /, $(math *, 2 9) $(math +, 7 5 4))
> $(math *, 1024 1024)) 19))
>
> versus:
>
> $(op + 5 $(op / $(op * $(op / $(op * 2 9) $(op + 7 5 4)) $(op * 1024 1024))
> 19))
>
> or:
>
> $(+ 5 $(
On Thu, 2020-05-21 at 11:46 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> In my discussion of the way to handle conditions I even mentioned
> allowing just one operand which would give the identity function.
>
> After sleeping on it, though, I'm not sure if that's the best idea.
> Maybe we should assume "0" for a m
On Thu, 2020-05-21 at 11:22 -0500, Kevin R. Bulgrien wrote:
>FILE_SIZES := 5 2 1 4
>TOTAL :- $(math +, $(FILE_SIZES))
>
> 2)
>
> FILE_SIZES := 5 2 1 4
> TOTAL :- $(+ $(FILE_SIZES))
>
> In my mind, TOTAL obviously ends up with the same value, but, 1) is
> more readable in the same way
> I plan to bow out of this discussion as I'm not vested in it, but, a
> distinguishing significant functional or interpretive difference
> between these two forms is not self-evident:
>
> 1)
>
>FILE_SIZES := 5 2 1 4
>TOTAL :- $(math +, $(FILE_SIZES))
>
> 2)
>
> FILE_SIZES := 5 2 1 4
> There's something to be said for this being able potentially to work
> - not that I'm pushing it mind:
> FILE_SIZES:= 5 2 1 4
> TOTAL:=$(+ $(FILE_SIZES)) # TOTAL is 5+2+1+4
> Here I'm not objecting to ($math +,$(FILE_SIZES)) or $(op
> +,$(FILE_SIZES)) - whatever on them - I am only trying to po
On Thu, 2020-05-21 at 15:35 +, Tim Murphy wrote:
> There's something to be said for this being able potentially to work
> - not that I'm pushing it mind:
>
> FILE_SIZES:= 5 2 1 4
> TOTAL:=$(+ $(FILE_SIZES)) # TOTAL is 5+2+1+4
>
> Here I'm not objecting to ($math +,$(FILE_SIZES)) or $(op
> +,$
On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 13:08, Paul Smith wrote:
>
> > Other function syntax where there are "different" types of parameters
> > or arguments (i.e. subst, patsubst, findstring, filter, etc.), use a
> > syntax something like:
> >
> > $(math operator, value list)
> >
> > Consistent syntax patterns a
On Thu, 2020-05-21 at 00:37 -0500, Kevin R. Bulgrien wrote:
> > Of course we can still do prefix notation with a single function we
> > just have to choose a name for it and it's a little less slick; for
> > example something like:
> >
> >$(op + 5 7 $(op * 3 2) 9)
> >
> > or whatever so the f
