There are commercial emulations of GNU make that can handle multiple outputs. I don't want to plug them because that might be annoying. It's just worth mentioning that it can be done.
Regards, Tim On 11 April 2013 11:14, Reinier Post <reinp...@win.tue.nl> wrote: > On Thu Apr 4 16:17:58 2013, psm...@gnu.org (Paul Smith) wrote: > > > This is expected behavior. A rule like: > > > > foo bar: > > @echo $@ > > > > is exactly the same thing, to make, as writing: > > > > foo: > > @echo $@ > > bar: > > @echo $@ > > > > It's just a shorthand for writing a lot of identical rules; it does NOT > > mean that a single invocation if the rule will generate all three > > targets, which is what you are expecting. > > Incidentally: other workflow/inference languages can express this > distinction perfectly and still allow the resulting specifications to > be analyzed for proper termination (e.g. safe Petri nets, Datalog); > I'd love to know of an alternative to make that is based on such a > language, but it seems too much to ask for make to be extended > in this way. > > -- > Reinier > > _______________________________________________ > Bug-make mailing list > Bug-make@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make > -- You could help some brave and decent people to have access to uncensored news by making a donation at: http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/friends/
_______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
