Paul Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2013-09-19 at 14:47 +0200, Frank Heckenbach wrote: > > > Hm. This is pretty contrived. I have a hard time imagining a real > > > makefile wanting to do this for a good reason. However, it does > > seem > > > that the solution may be simple enough. > > > > I also doubt someone would do it intentionally, but of course, there > > could be a $(shell) command that writes some error or warning to > > stderr (perhaps only under certain circumstances, not expected by > > the original author). Then again, this situation may be so rare that > > it might not warrant extra effort. > > I've never understood why someone would use $(shell ...) in a recipe... > I mean, the recipe will be run in the shell!!
True. Though what about shells such as the Dos one which don't have something like `...` AFAIR? Also, a slight difference is with `...` the echoed command shows the sub-command, whereas with $(shell) it shows its output. Not saying either one is better in general, but perhaps depending on the situation someone might prefer one or the other. FWIW, the way I came across it now wasn't actually from my own usage in a Makefile, just by thorough testing of the features. _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
