Re: Brittle -includes

[David Deutsch]

Hi Paul,

Sorry, that was part of my earlier email - I understand that this is not 
possible currently. The question was - if I wanted to implement the behavior in 
make itself, would I have to basically write my own make? I know that Guile is 
a choice for extending make with custom code, but it seems to me like that is 
only for adding functions, not adding to core behavior like pattern rules, or 
am I missing something there?

best regards,
David

Am 21. Oktober 2019 14:36:04 MESZ schrieb Paul Smith <address@hidden>:
>On Mon, 2019-10-21 at 07:51 +0200, David Deutsch wrote:
>> On 10/21/19 7:29 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
>> > I can only assume that the rules in question are pattern rules.  If
>> > they were explicit rules then make would indeed give you a more
>clear
>> > declaration of which file is missing.
>> 
>> Actually, I'm quite sure that they are explicit rules. I will try to
>put
>> together a simple example to recreate the issue.
>
>OK.
>
>> > Unfortunately I didn't really understand the process you're using. 
>Why
>> > do you need to write hundreds or thousands of makefiles?
>> 
>> I think the process I'm using is best understood by its requirement:
>> Pattern rules with multiple, named %'s. I call them blueprints and
>they
>> produce makefiles that give you the set of targets and recipes to
>create
>> complex prerequisites.
>
>OK, but, make doesn't support multiple pattern characters in a single
>target, as you're aware.  So I'm not sure what exactly you're asking us
>to comment on.

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.