On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 13:20 +0200, Glen Stark wrote:
> You asked "what if people want to define their own "out-of-date-ness"
> test?". I found that a really exciting idea. As I thought about
> this, I realized I what I really want is not to replace Make's current
> behavior, but to add an
>
> >My thinking is that the timestamp is in fact an overly conservative
> > test. We never have the case that the timestamp indicates something
> > *has not* been changed when in fact it has (i.e. we always build if
> > something has changed),
>
> That's interesting, because in my exper
