Follow-up Comment #8, bug #51338 (project make): > …, including POSIX-compliant makefiles as well as GNU make-specific makefiles.
I contributed also a bit in this area. > In any event, the bug tracker is not the place for that discussion. It seems that it will occasionally happen to “loose” the context for a topic if an issue number was not registered for it. > …, is it possible to define new built-in make functions then sure, … I hope that our constructive dialogue can result into such software development results (together with documentation extensions). I started with an example (which is simple enough to be reusable) for this issue. I could include adjusted variants into various make scripts as needed. But design/construction patterns can be also so simple in some cases so that they will be “included” (or just applied) somehow again. Will it become more useful to agree on corresponding (function) names <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_design_pattern> then? _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?51338> _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.gnu.org/ _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
