"Paul D. Smith" wrote: > Yes, not only in theory but in fact. > > But what I'm saying is that if you're providing a capability to jump to > where a target is defined, you'll have to pick one of those. How do you > choose which one? Or do you list the install target 3 times?
Not that I agree with creating an IDE, but how do IDE's typically do it for overloaded function names and re-used static linkage or anonymous namespace symbols? > Hm. OK, well, maybe I don't understand what you're looking for then. > Note that of the 5 directories the first one might have 3 files that > could be built, the second one 3,000, the third 50, etc. so any progress > meter that simply relied on those 5 directories without knowing what's > in them wouldn't be very accurate. IMHO, this is another reason not to use recursive make. > Ah! So, it's very like VC++ project files or something. > > Well, that's one way to do it, and if you do this then certainly most of > the advanced features we've been discussing are things you won't have to > worry about: since you're writing the makefile it's doubtful you'd > include those things (they are hard to automate). OTOH, developers who know make and want to take advantage of advanced features will be extremely limited and frustrated. I know I would be. For example, as I've said before, we have a standard infrastructure. But being an infrastructure, I'm free to use the parts I want, override the parts that don't fit, and add stuff I want. In my specific case, I was able to encode our package version dependencies and have them checked at build time (ie during make makefile parsing) such that conflicting versions will cause a build error. > As a _user_ I know what I would want though: I would want two modes. > One that wrote makefiles for me using whatever method you come up with: > directly, through automake, whatever. As long as it was drop-dead > simple to use and accurate; in this mode I'd probably never care to even > see the makefile. I just use "cp" on an existing makefile :-) > The other mode would be a "passthrough" mode which let me write my own > set of makefiles; here I'd want as much of the "helper" infrastructure > as practical including the editor help, the markup of make output to > find errors, etc. etc. BUT! in no way should that mode constrain what I > put into my makefile. In that mode every decision of the IDE should be > "lenient"; it should not force me to do anything. If the IDE doesn't > recognize what I'm doing it should shrug and just do its best to > interpret it, but let me do it. I completely agree. MTC, Noel -- NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited. _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make