On Mon Jan 12 13:14:02 2015, elfr...@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring)
wrote:
> > GNU make is the only implementation of make that supports any GNU
> > make functions, including $(eval ...), if that's what you mean.
>
> I hope that more software tools can cope with make file syntax and
>
> Make implementations are notorious for having lots of incompatible
> extensions. That's because the POSIX standard for make (which all
> implementations typically adhere to) is very limited in what it
> requires, so implementations have added their own features in addition
> to the standard, and
On Mon, 2015-01-12 at 13:14 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > GNU make is the only implementation of make that supports any GNU
> > make functions, including $(eval ...), if that's what you mean.
>
> I hope that more software tools can cope with make file syntax and
> processing of corresponding
> GNU make is the only implementation of make that supports any GNU
> make functions, including $(eval ...), if that's what you mean.
I hope that more software tools can cope with make file syntax and
processing of corresponding GNU extensions.
> In fact, recursive variable expansion is about th
On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 10:00 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > http://make.mad-scientist.net/category/metaprogramming/
>
> How many software implementations support the eval function in make
> files?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "software implementations"... you
mean different implementat
>>> So you have in your toolbox $(shell) and $(eval).
>>
>> I am not familiar enough with the second make function.
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Eval-Function.html
>
> I wrote some blog posts about eval and other metaprogramming techniques
> in make that you might find inte
