Re: Implementing an "eval" function

Hi Paul, On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:02:37AM -0500, Paul D. Smith wrote: > I'm not ready to release it for testing yet. > All right. :} > You are, of course, free to do what you like, but my previous suggestion > is still the best one I have. You have a simple implementation that > works for y

Re: RFC: Extensions to GNU Make

Eray Ozkural wrote: > The idea is to have LISP like conditional expressions. Ahem, as Paul pointed out this is already provided by the $(if ...) function. Anyway, I'm looking forward to your suggestions for enhancements to GNU Make. Thanks! -- Eray (exa) Ozkural Comp. Sci. Dept.,

RFC: Extensions to GNU Make

Hi all! I'm trying to write a small suite of makefiles for GNU make with the intention of providing automake-level functionality, with more flexibility. While doing that, I came across a few limitations in GNU Make. For example, I can't write conditional expressions within user defined functions

Implementing an "eval" function

Hi, Previously we'd discussed that in order to implement a portable eval (or interpret as I'd called it) read.c needs some mods. Now, I've looked over stream calls in make and it doesn't seem all that difficult to replace them with wrapper routines that know how to handle portable string streams.

Re: Volunteer available

"Paul D. Smith" wrote: > > Use what you have, and when the new version is available you can switch > to that. It sounds like what you have done is largely user-compatible > what I'm doing. > Sounds okay. What are you doing btw? ;) > As for an internal implementation, I think this is essential

Volunteer available

Hi, I might be pushing things too much, but it looks like things are goin' a bit slow without anyone pushing. My makefile collection that wants to replace automake needs some small extensions, notably the read.c features that Paul's working on... However, my makefiles have been lying around for

Development version on CVS?

Hi Paul, Is it possible that you create an alpha branch on the CVS so that people can check the code before it is committed as a stable release? I've looked at the latest changelog, but it looks like those are just bug fixes so nothing in the direction that you mention. I guess you didn't commit

Re: 3.80 development

Wait. There's already something in the CVS, I should take a look at it ;) Thanks, -- Eray (exa) Ozkural Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo ___ Bug-make mailing list [EMAIL P

Re: 3.80 development

"Paul D. Smith" wrote: > > 3.80 is coming along nicely. Unfortunately, because almost all the > changes are confined to a few parts of read.c, it's difficult to break > the work up for more than one person without everything getting messy. > Well, so you won't be making your changes available

Re: Make on Windows NT using VC++ 6.0

Thierry Zamofing wrote: > > calling nmake /f NMakefile on cmd.exe: errr, nmake isn't GNU Make. go ask for some support ms :) they may not be very responsive though, i hope the next 150MB service pack fixes your problem. :))) -- Eray (exa) Ozkural Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara e-

3.80 development

Hi Paul and all, How's 3.80 development going on, is anything new available on CVS and how can I contribute? In particular I'm interested in expanding multi-line strings that can be evaluated as commands eliminating the need to write them in separate makefiles and including them (which I think is

Any progress on new expansion code?

Hi Paul, I'd like to check whether there has been any progress on the code we've been talking about. If there hasn't been the opportunity tell me a bit about how you thought it could be done, and I'll code it right away. Sincerely, -- Eray (exa) Ozkural Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, An

Re: Stems in pattern rules suck! Why not use regexes

Kirat Singh wrote: > > Another beef I have is why can't I generate rules using a foreach? So > I could also do the above with something like: > I have a patch that does this but Paul said he's been working on a more general version. Unfortunately he didn't tell me (yet) what exactly it is or wh

Re: Extension proposal

Hi, "Paul D. Smith" wrote: > > Hi Eray; > > Thanks for the patch. > > However, you should be aware that the major new feature for the next > release of GNU make, which will be 3.80, is a superset of the change you > are proposing. The read.c file is being (indeed, has already been) > fairly e

Extension proposal

Hi! In the course of developing a skeletal build system using GNU make, I was looking how I could incorporate automake-like features into make. I've been using a hand-crafted makefile over the last few years, so I just took it, refactored it into a few files and extended it so that it had an auto