Sorry for "plugging" my work but you can use loadable modules to implement any function you like and I have done "ifeq" some time ago here:
https://bitbucket.org/tnmurphy/extramake ... except my version is $(equals...) This is a good way to experiment with what you want from the function before asking it to be added and of course you can provide a patch. Regards, Tim On 12 October 2017 at 07:26, anonymous <invalid.nore...@gnu.org> wrote: > Follow-up Comment #3, bug #52209 (project make): > > Thanks Paul for dealing with this so quickly. > > For the benefit of clarity (and the poster of comment #1), the parallel > between what I propose and the existing preprocessor version is deliberate > as > I value consistency in design. > > There has been an eq function in the source code for a long time, but it is > disabled behind an experimental flag. I think the problem is that eq > introduces a fixed idea of a true result as it always returns 1 for true. > Introducing eq would effectively change the representation of true from > non-empty to 1 on a conceptual level - and conceptual changes are always > risky. > > The ifeq function proposal is an attempt to allow support for testing > equality > without needing to change the concept of true. It also allows the same > flexibility of the existing $(if..) function where an action could be > taken on > the result, for example to generate an error if strings don't match: > > $(ifeq $(first),$(second),,$(error something broke)) > > I will try and contribute a patch, but I don't know when I'll have time > and I > wanted to make an enhancement request in the meantime. > > To the poster of comment #1. Yes, I posted anonymously for reasons I don't > need to explain here. It's unfortunate you think that makes me an idiot > and my > contribution only worth mocking and I'm very glad that Paul never thinks > that > way. I'm not keen on sharing my email address with the world, and your > response makes me want to do that even less. This is not a point-scoring > teenage forum and I'm only interested in talking technical, but after > taking > your own advice, if you still feel the need to insult me personally my > name is > below. > > regards, > Rob. > > > _______________________________________________________ > > Reply to this item at: > > <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?52209> > > _______________________________________________ > Message sent via/by Savannah > http://savannah.gnu.org/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Bug-make mailing list > Bug-make@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make >
_______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
