>> I hoped somehow that another level of data indirection could be avoided. > > To be honest, based on what I've seen, you could do with a few more > levels of indirection.
My knowledge around GNU make usage is evolving. > The rules you've presented here are (to me) almost impossible to read. Interesting … > Abstracting some of these longer and more complex contents into other > variable assignments might help make the structure of the makefile > more clear. I guess that this view can also become a matter of taste. I could develop a complete make function library to achieve a better design. Can it eventually become harder then to understand the relationships within a bigger build script collection? Would to like to point to any examples which demonstrate the kind of software abstraction level that you would prefer? >> It prints the generated recipe at least after the addition of the backslash >> you recommended, doesn't it? > > It prints the recipe, I needed this debug output for a moment. > but cannot run the recipe, because the result of expanding the $(info ...) > function is the empty string. I know that. I found that it would help a bit in our clarification of implementation details. Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
