Hi All, I don't know if this has been discussed before, I tried to dig into the mail archive but didn't found any hit.
I love the function like macro's (variables) :) and I was wondering if we could think about an enhancement were we could avoid the 'call' name in the call sequence. I got the impression (not internal knowledgeable so may be wrong) that in $(foo x,y,z) 'foo x' is not a possible variable name, in contrast with $(foo,x,y,z) where foo,x,y,z is a valid variable name. So I was thinking that $(foo x,y,z) could be internally expanded as $(call foo,x,y,z). Dunno if this logical would break other valid construction, if so we could add one more heuristic where we could do this internal expansion only if the foo definition does have some $num meanig we expact call on it. This is not crucial, just that I am a lazy typer and I know when a variable is to e used as a function like. Cheers, Phi _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
