On Thu, 2024-01-11 at 00:37 -0500, Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
> You are designing a new feature, aren't you? Specifically, the
> ability to unset -e. If really needed, a makefile can reset -e on
> the command line for submake and have submake do the work.
> Alternatively, it is possible to introduce
On Sun, 2024-01-28 at 18:06 -0500, rsbec...@nexbridge.com wrote:
> > FOO +:= bar
> >
> > can be interpreted as working like this:
> >
> > FOO := $(FOO) bar
> >
> > which is what you and others are arguing for. Or it can be
> > interpreted as working
> > like this:
> >
> > __FOO :=
On Sunday, January 28, 2024 5:36 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
>On Sat, 2024-01-27 at 17:45 -0500, rsbec...@nexbridge.com wrote:
>> My take on it is that +:= (because of the : ) means that you have to
>> resolve everything at that point.
>
>Yes, I understand what you are saying. The question is, is that t
On Mon, 2024-01-22 at 21:33 -0500, Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 8:16 AM Paul Smith wrote:
> > I don't understand the point you are making about +!=.
>
> If all new operators behave the same as +=, when the variable exists,
> then +!= is not needed, because +!= would do the sa
On Sat, 2024-01-27 at 17:45 -0500, rsbec...@nexbridge.com wrote:
> My take on it is that +:= (because of the : ) means that you have to
> resolve everything at that point.
Yes, I understand what you are saying. The question is, is that the
right conception? Here's another way to look at it:
