* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 09:22:48PM CET:
> On Thursday 18 November 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:
> > On 2010-11-18 20:31 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > > +...@vindex @code{AM_V_GEN}
> > > +...@c FIXME: wouldn't $(AM_V_SILENT) be clearer? Should we deprecate
> > > +...@c $(AM_V_at)? It should be kept for backward-compatibility, of
> > > +...@c course.
> >
> > AM_V_GEN is a long enough name as it is; AM_V_SILENT would be even worse
> > in this regard.
> >
> > AM_V_at is very useful for targets which have multiple commands. It's
> > not that interesting to see "GEN foo.bar" five times in a row.
> >
> There's probably a misunderstanding here; I was suggesting to rename
> `AM_V_at' to `AM_V_SILENT', for clarity; and deprecate *only* the old
> name `AM_V_at'. Does my proposal make sense now?
It makes sense, but it's a long name. It's a close call I'd say but
I wouldn't want to deprecate AM_V_at, simply because it is shorter.
Other renaming suggestions have been made before, see e.g. this thread:
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-automake/2010-04/msg00001.html>
But I'm quite hesitant to do any renames at all unless there is a clear
advantage. Automake has had a slightly bad reputation in the past for
not being backward compatible, and I wouldn't want that to return. (And
I don't like overly verbose makefiles with lots of duplication either.)
Cheers,
Ralf
