: Pattern Specific Variable Limitation
%% "Matthew Von-Maszewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
mv> You and I could argue all day about interpretations of "equally
mv> applicable" and "order in which pattern rules appear". You read
mv> this a fir
%% "Matthew Von-Maszewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
mv> You and I could argue all day about interpretations of "equally
mv> applicable" and "order in which pattern rules appear". You read
mv> this a firm requirement definition. I read it as fuzzy. But the
mv> bottom line is what is
As a long time "abuser" of makefiles - especially using gnu make extensions,
I feel
a need to speak up here.
I see Matthew's need, and feel his pain in dealing with lots of makefiles
that
include one another, making it hard to predict the order. However, I feel
that the
current behavior is more
s in the
code.
I do appreciate your time spent in reviewing and discussing this change.
Thanks,
Matthew
-Original Message-
From: Paul D. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Paul D. Smith
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 9:50 AM
To: Matthew Von-Maszewski
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
%% "Matthew Von-Maszewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
mv> I understand your concern. What is the impact to older makefiles
mv> if this change is implemented?
There are more issues than this, too:
1) Difference in behavior with other pattern rules. The way "normal"
pattern rules are
On Behalf Of
Paul D. Smith
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 10:35 PM
To: Matthew Von-Maszewski
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pattern Specific Variable Limitation
%% "Matthew Von-Maszewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
mv> I found a small, but in my case defeating, limitation
%% "Matthew Von-Maszewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
mv> I found a small, but in my case defeating, limitation with the
mv> Pattern Specific Variable code. The code finds the first match
mv> for a pattern, not necessarily the most specific match.
I'll have to think about this change. I
