On Thursday 18 November 2010, Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 2010-11-18 20:31 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > I have a first, very rough draft of the patch (see attachement); it is
> > nowhere complete, but I'd like to ear from you anyway for early criticism,
> > suggestions, and maybe contributions ;-)
> [...]
> > +...@vindex @code{AM_V_GEN}
> > +...@c FIXME: wouldn't $(AM_V_SILENT) be clearer? Should we deprecate
> > +...@c $(AM_V_at)? It should be kept for backward-compatibility, of
> > +...@c course.
>
> AM_V_GEN is a long enough name as it is; AM_V_SILENT would be even worse
> in this regard.
>
> AM_V_at is very useful for targets which have multiple commands. It's
> not that interesting to see "GEN foo.bar" five times in a row.
>
There's probably a misunderstanding here; I was suggesting to rename
`AM_V_at' to `AM_V_SILENT', for clarity; and deprecate *only* the old
name `AM_V_at'. Does my proposal make sense now?
Regards,
Stefano
