On Saturday 20 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * 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. > In this case that shouldn't be a problem, since I'm not proposing to remove AM_V_at, but only to deprecate it in favor of the new alternative. Anyway ...
> (And I don't like overly verbose makefiles with lots of > duplication either.) > ... I'm fine with this; I'll just rewrite the fixme comment to reference the thread above and to be more "possibilist": @c FIXME: Could we find a better name than $(AM_V_at)? $(AM_V_SILENT) @c is nice, but also a bit too long. @c If we find such a better name, we should then deprecate $(AM_V_at), @c but *not* remove it: it should be kept for backward-compatibility. Thanks, Stefano