> (While I don't think the sysV syntax is *great*, I personally think
> it's a better choice than overloading the meaning of parentheses.)
+1
It also avoids the problem of having to make sense of nesting, e.g.
>>(b1 (c1 c2)): d1
Eddy.
___
>>y.tab.h y.tab.c y.output: yacc.ts
I don't actually see that y.output serves any role in this; simply
remove every reference to it and your example should be clearer.
>>y.tab.o: y.tab.c y.tab.h
I don't understand .INTERMEDIATE well enough to know why this chain
fails to lead to y.tab.o'
On 3/30/2010 2:14 AM, Edward Welbourne wrote:
y.tab.h y.tab.c y.output: yacc.ts
I don't actually see that y.output serves any role in this; simply
remove every reference to it and your example should be clearer.
It actually does serve a roll for testing purposes. Try the following
On 3/29/2010 8:20 PM, Philip Guenther wrote:
Hmm. SysV make has offered the desired feature with the syntax
b1 + b2 + b3: d1
touch -r $^ $@
Ah, thank you! I wasn't aware of a precedent syntax for this feature.
I definitely agree with
using this syntax over what I proposed for comp
