Re: Proposed syntax for static make-also rule

[David Boyce]

At 08:20 PM 12/10/2002 +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Risk assessment: Existing makefiles may break if the first character
> of a dependency is & or | *and* they're written by a whitespace-phobic.

I'd suggest that "risk assessment" be expanded to include the possibility 
that some other make-alike uses this syntax for something else. We're not 
operating in a pure universe of GNU make users here, but rather one which 
includes potential GNU make users, people writing makefiles that must be 
compatible between GNU and other makes, people migrating to (or from) GNU 
make, etc.

For instance, the fact that some other makes use := for a different purpose 
than GNU make can cause trouble and would argue for some assurance that 
this won't become a similar case (it does seem unlikely; I certainly 
haven't heard of anyone else using &: or |: in dependencies).

Otherwise, it all sounds good to me.

David Boyce