On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 22:46:23 +0100, Tim Murphy <tnmur...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you can't make first-class functions that are the equal of $(filter) or > $(subst) or whatever, or indeed replace them, then it seems like a bit of a > fudge for the sake of 4 characters.
You can make functions that do the work of $(filter) or $(subst) and look the same if the ugly "call" prefix wasn't required. So I don't understand what you mean by the precondition. Almost all other languages try to *eliminate* distinctions between built-ins and user-defined functions. This makes it easy, for example, to transition from a user-defined function to a built-in function if the user-defined function becomes a built-in. GNU make is an oddity in that regard. The "call" creates a completely unnecessary distinction between built-in functions and user-defined functions. It's not 4 characters, it's 5 characters including space, and it's not once per Makefile. These characters are wasted on *EVERY* function invocation. If function invocations are rare that's no big deal. If you invoke functions often then that starts to get annoying. I have a makefile where at least one function is invoked in practically every rule, so they're starting to really add up. > I think one could end up having huge discussions about this to a pretty > limited benefit and miss spending the time on some of your other proposals > which get around really significant problems. Thanks! Unfortunately I have to wait for my company to work through the FSF contribution paperwork before I can write/contribute code. We've done it before, so hopefully it won't take *too* long. But that gives me time to discuss on this mailing list various ideas and hopefully refine them. And of course, if someone *else* implements them that'd be even better from my point of view :-). --- David A. Wheeler _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
