Follow-up Comment #5, bug #30370 (project make):
I agree with Paul. The discussion on stackoverflow is talking about a more
general mechanism, namely having pattern rules with multiple stems. I think if
we were to consider such an extension, then it is better to go all the way and
add support for regex-based patterns (which, BTW, are requested regularly by
users).
What you are proposing is a convenient syntax to define a set of old-style
pattern rules. The more general pattern rules will be able to handle your case
but not vice-versa.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?30370>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
