[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: .ONESHELL enhancement?
From: |
David Boyce |
Subject: |
Re: .ONESHELL enhancement? |
Date: |
Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:59:36 -0400 |
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Eric Melski <address@hidden> wrote:
> I'm suggesting that this is how .ONESHELL ought to be implemented. I don't
> see much benefit from your alternative proposal except for your build
> auditor use case, but if we could use an arbitrary interpreter for command
> recipes -- wow! The possibilities are very exciting, imho. A feature like
> this might have obviated the creation of tools like Scons, for example.
Agree. I was one of those who played with SHELL=perl long ago but was
defeated by that pesky -c (and also the fact that perl isn't in a
reliable path so you need an execvp to find it, which if I remember
was a problem at the time). An arbitrary interpreter could be very
cool.
> True. Note though that writing the recipe to a temp file and invoking it
> with "$(SHELL) tmpfile" would satisfy both our goals, and I think the worry
> about creating a temp file for each target is overblown.
For the record, it's not my worry per se, I was just predicting a
general reaction. Of course my record predicting the reaction to
.ONESHELL was not very good either ...
DSB
- Re: .ONESHELL enhancement?, (continued)
- Re: .ONESHELL enhancement?, Paul Smith, 2009/09/23
- Re: .ONESHELL enhancement?, David Boyce, 2009/09/23
- Re: .ONESHELL enhancement?, Paul Smith, 2009/09/23
- Re: .ONESHELL enhancement?, David Boyce, 2009/09/23
- Re: .ONESHELL enhancement?, Paul Smith, 2009/09/23
- Re: .ONESHELL enhancement?, David Boyce, 2009/09/23
- Re: .ONESHELL enhancement?, Paul Smith, 2009/09/23
- Re: .ONESHELL enhancement?, David Boyce, 2009/09/25
- Re: .ONESHELL enhancement?, David Boyce, 2009/09/25
- Re: .ONESHELL enhancement?, Paul Smith, 2009/09/25