On 17 August 2006 15:13, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>
>>>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively, you can try to implement a $(cygpath ...) function in
>>>> make and submit *that* to the upstream maintainers.
>>>
>>> FWIW, I don't think such a function is a good idea, and if it is
>>> proposed on the Make mailing list, I will probably object to it.
>>>
>>> The reason is that adding such a function goes against portability of
>>> Makefiles across different ports of Make,
>>
>> ...which you would already have with cl commands and DOS paths...
>
> Actually, sorry, I've misread the above. Doesn't GNU make already have a
> plethora of functions not present in other makes? What's wrong with one
> more? If "cygpath" is too system-specific a name, let's pick one that
> isn't ("pathconv"?).
And I was going to point out that it could simply be a no-op on any other
platform and, as you say, a dll call on cygwin that hides make from being
exposed to any 'black magic'.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
