[bug #51338] Support for construction patterns by make functions

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #51338 (project make): > …, including POSIX-compliant makefiles as well as GNU make-specific makefiles. I contributed also a bit in this area. > In any event, the bug tracker is not the place for that discussion. It seems that it will occasionally happen to “loose” th

[bug #51338] Support for construction patterns by make functions

Follow-up Comment #7, bug #51338 (project make): > > it's basically a request to "please make things better". > Yes, this is also true. Well, I'm not personally interested in re-designing makefiles. The makefile syntax has a lot of problems: no one would suggest that it doesn't. However, make

[bug #51338] Support for construction patterns by make functions

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #51338 (project make): > …, but I can't tell exactly what aspects of the current capabilities you want to be different. This one is more a feature request. > That's not a design, But I find that a selection of two rules could fit into this area. > it's basically a r

[bug #51338] Support for construction patterns by make functions

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #51338 (project make): > I suggest to give some make rule combinations (pairs, trios, …) another look. That doesn't constitute a specific design. You've provided an example of makefile syntax that works today, in your initial description. Clearly you are not satisfied

[bug #51338] Support for construction patterns by make functions

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #51338 (project make): > You don't need to use secondary expansion inside the recipe, because you already have access to the automatic variables like $@ there. I thought about a need for a “second expansion” (for a moment) while it could be implemented in the mentioned u

[bug #51338] Support for construction patterns by make functions

Update of bug #51338 (project make): Status:None => Not A Bug Open/Closed:Open => Closed ___ Follow-up Comment #3: Secondary expansion is

[bug #51338] Support for construction patterns by make functions

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #51338 (project make): > You can do that today, no need for any enhancement. I was also unsure about differences in the desired application of “second expansion”. I have shown a bit with the code example that special build rule combinations can be implemented with make

[bug #51338] Support for construction patterns by make functions

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #51338 (project make): > the code which will be evaluated in the recipes can be configured by function call parameters You can do that today, no need for any enhancement. > I guess that I need to use the functionality “second expansion” then. No. https://www.gnu.org

[bug #51338] Support for construction patterns by make functions

URL: Summary: Support for construction patterns by make functions Project: make Submitted by: elfring Submitted on: Thu 29 Jun 2017 07:55:34 AM CEST Severity: 3 - Normal