On Thu, 12 May 2005, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You confused me with the "later."
I wasn't sure how the target overriding was implemented so wanted to be save. > Our local targets are known before we actually execute a top-level > (target "") import, right? Probably. If you say so it will be correct 8-) > So what I take away from the above is that when there is only one > "foo", the real work lives in "foo" while "bar.foo" depends on "foo" > (my idea turned around). Yes. > But say the importER explicitly depends on bar.foo . Isn't this > still going to pollute the log in the opposite way my implementation > would? :) i.e. > > [foo]: > > [bar.foo]: Yes. But this is less likely than having the importer depend on "foo" IMHO. So in the normal case everything would look the same as today and in border cases we'll get an additional empty target. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
