Re: .ONESHELL enhancement?

[Eric Melski]

Matt McCutchen wrote:

> But note the following in the standard:
>
> > The single-shell method has the advantages in [...] the lack of a
> > requirement for many continued lines.
>
> So they are viewing the command recipe as a single shell script, and
> constructs like the following would be legal:
>
> foo: bar
>         if test -s $<
>         then
>                 echo 'nonempty' >$@
>         else
>                 echo 'empty' >$@
>         fi

I assumed that this was the intended use of .ONESHELL.  If you imagine 
that the command recipe is written to a temporary file and invoked as, 
eg, "sh script.sh" when .ONESHELL is enabled, it would allow you to use 
arbitrary interpreters as your shell.  For example:

.ONESHELL:
SHELL=/bin/perl
all:
        print "foo\n";
        print "bar\n";

This wouldn't work with the "concatenate with &&" proposal.

Best regards,

Eric Melski
http://blog.electric-cloud.com/