2012/1/16 Paul Smith <psm...@gnu.org>: > 2. Unclear what to do about newlines. The code doesn't add any but > getting a newline into a make variable is tricky.
Is it possible https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?35063 would help here? I think it's a simple, robust, helpful extension (but I would). > '>>' : Open the file with mode "a" (append) and write the second > argument to the file, plus a newline. If no second argument is given, > nothing is written (if the file didn't exist it will be created but > empty; if the file did exist it will be unchanged). Would it make sense to guarantee timestamp update even with an empty second argument? Reasons in favor: - Make is inherently timestamp based and clear rules are important. It could create a new class of mysterious, hard-to-reproduce bugs if this function sometimes updates the file and other times not. - Something like $(info touch $@$(file >>$@)) could become an efficient, portable, in-process pattern for "touching" a file. > Do people think this would be useable? Looks good to me. -David Boyce _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
