On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 03:04:28PM +0300, Dmitry wrote: > > > It'll be very good to have some examples with explanations in the docs. > > Maybe so. Concrete suggestions are easy to discuss, like: > > I think this example would saved me a lot of time. > make -f mkfile > content of mkfile: > > all: > @echo total $(MAKE_RESTARTS) MAKE_RESTARTS > > mkfile: force > [ x$(MAKE_RESTARTS) = x3 ] || touch mkfile ; sleep 1 > > force: ; > > > > > 1) make starts with a clean slate-> make starts with a clean sTate > > The "clean slate" idiom seems more natural to this native English speaker. > > Would "starts from scratch" present the same problem? > > I'm sure that most people read documentation not for English > improvement, but just to understand how things work. > So for me (and I bet for thousands others ) it'll be better if > documentation would be written as simple as possible. > What about "clean slate" thank you, my English is a little better now.
Yes, I graduated from a high school in Moscow in 1980 without knowing what "clean slate" means, but I learned there much more useful "collective farm", "socialist competition", etc :-) And for a while I needed a dictionary to read messages of the Fortran IV compiler and DOS (no, not the MSDOS, there was another DOS then) on a Soviet clone of IBM OS 360. With all respect, yours is is a baseless complaint - please complain to your English teacher instead. Cheers, Dmitrii > > > > > In this discussion, the man says that this is no longer relevant. > > Perhaps we could agree that SCCS and RCS are now a minority interest. It > > does seem unlikely that other systems will get similar support added to the > > default rules, in which case the documentation could mention SCCS and RCS > > specifically without becoming a maintenance burden. Reading the original > > discussion, though, perhaps the more useful clarification would have been > > to make it explicit that Make has default, built-in make rules, the ones > > from https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Catalogue-of-Rules. > > Sorry, perhaps I don't exactly understand last sequence, but if I > understand right - you say about adding a link to > https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Catalogue-of-Rules > For me (as a nube in make) would be good something like this: > Automatic creation of makefile currently possible from only RCS / SCCS > systems ( more about "Built-In Rules" here - > https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Catalogue-of-Rules ). > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:39 AM Martin Dorey > <martin.do...@hitachivantara.com> wrote: > > > > > It'l be very good to have some examples with explanations in the docs. > > > > Maybe so. Concrete suggestions are easy to discuss, like: > > > > > 1) make starts with a clean slate-> make starts with a clean sTate > > > > The "clean slate" idiom seems more natural to this native English speaker. > > Would "starts from scratch" present the same problem? > > > > > In this discussion, the man says that this is no longer relevant. > > > > Perhaps we could agree that SCCS and RCS are now a minority interest. It > > does seem unlikely that other systems will get similar support added to the > > default rules, in which case the documentation could mention SCCS and RCS > > specifically without becoming a maintenance burden. Reading the original > > discussion, though, perhaps the more useful clarification would have been > > to make it explicit that Make has default, built-in make rules, the ones > > from https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#Catalogue-of-Rules. > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Bug-make <bug-make-bounces+martin.dorey=hds....@gnu.org> on behalf of > > Dmitry <dmitry1...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 09:51 > > To: bug-make@gnu.org <bug-make@gnu.org> > > Subject: notes about make docs p 3.5 > > > > ***** EXTERNAL EMAIL ***** > > > > Hello, I'm reading GNU make docs and had troubles with understanding > > paragraph 3.5 . > > These are some problems which I encountered: > > > > 1) make starts with a clean slate-> make starts with a clean sTate > > > > 2) It was difficult to understand how make remade makefiles without > > examples. > > There is discussion when peoples explain me what's going on. > > It'l be very good to have some examples with explanations in the docs. > > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstackoverflow.com%2Fquestions%2F65058553%2Fhow-makefiles-are-remade-dont-understand-official-documentation%2F65061327&data=04%7C01%7CMartin.Dorey%40hitachivantara.com%7C83dec436f92a4006439808d8955fbc5b%7C18791e1761594f52a8d4de814ca8284a%7C0%7C0%7C637423585715337014%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=nneTzpEm8zVuu9UnGX4%2BRfNkCNiErdp95JnClTNLfLM%3D&reserved=0 > > > > 3) It's absolutely unclear this clause > > > > > If you do not specify any makefiles to be read with ‘-f’ or ‘--file’ > > > options, make will try the default makefile names; see What Name to Give > > > Your Makefile. Unlike makefiles explicitly requested with ‘-f’ or > > > ‘--file’ options, make is not certain that these makefiles should exist. > > > However, if a default makefile does not exist but can be created by > > > running make rules, you probably want the rules to be run so that the > > > makefile can be used. > > > > In this discussion, the man says that this is no longer relevant. > > Perhaps it must be deleted or some explanations must be added. > > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstackoverflow.com%2Fquestions%2F65071351%2Fegg-and-chicken-problem-when-auto-generate-default-makefile%2F65072730&data=04%7C01%7CMartin.Dorey%40hitachivantara.com%7C83dec436f92a4006439808d8955fbc5b%7C18791e1761594f52a8d4de814ca8284a%7C0%7C0%7C637423585715337014%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=bL4YGGM3AiNlMG211B75ZtJ8dLrMMzWKD6HXvW0hSRA%3D&reserved=0 > > > > Respect, > > -- > > Dmitry > > > > > -- > -- > Dmitry >
