$(call x) rebinds the positional parameters. $x and $(x) do not. This distinction is used to break macro logic into smaller pieces in which $1 et al. still refer to the positional parameters from the top-level macro instead of being rebound to the empty string.
Kyle On Mon, May 21, 2018, 4:11 AM Garreau, Alexandre <galex-...@galex-713.eu> wrote: > Why not, like in shell, when some function/variable is undefined, call > an internal one when defined? What’s the historic reason of this? > > For instance, if there’s an occurence of $(several words) in the > makefile, and the variable “several words” isn’t defined (that’s not a > natural thing to do anyway), taking its firstword, and being equivalent > to $(call several,words) might improve readability, be simpler, > etc. then why not? > > And then I asked myself, if some functions weren’t deemed useful enough > to get integrated as native primitives implemented in C, why do we still > need to use the $(call fun,args) syntax when it could be done like shell > and decide that any multi-word undefined reference could take its > firstword and use it as call does? like if in “$(fun args)”, the > variable “fun args” being if not undefinable, at least inaccessible, if > the "fun" variable exists, make it equivalent to “$(call fun,args)”? > > Thank you for your time, hoping my message isn’t too much confuse or > disrelevant… > > _______________________________________________ > 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
