Follow-up Comment #1, bug #60077 (project make): I'm not too jazzed about the idea of $@ working differently for explicit vs. pattern rule grouped targets. I agree that the "instigating target" may not be so useful, but if we change $@ to be a deterministic target then there's NO way to obtain the instigating target: that information is lost.
What I would prefer is to leave $@ as it is and implement a new variable containing the list of all grouped targets ($& seems like a good choice to me, or else we could use something like $(@^) which would kind of be like $^ but for targets) for both explicit AND pattern rules, then users can either use $(firstword $&) to obtain the deterministic target or we could introduce a new special variable like $(@<) or something which was basically the same thing. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?60077> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/