* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 09:22:48PM CET: > On Thursday 18 November 2010, Nick Bowler wrote: > > On 2010-11-18 20:31 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > > +...@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?
It makes sense, but it's a long name. It's a close call I'd say but I wouldn't want to deprecate AM_V_at, simply because it is shorter. Other renaming suggestions have been made before, see e.g. this thread: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-automake/2010-04/msg00001.html> But I'm quite hesitant to do any renames at all unless there is a clear advantage. Automake has had a slightly bad reputation in the past for not being backward compatible, and I wouldn't want that to return. (And I don't like overly verbose makefiles with lots of duplication either.) Cheers, Ralf