Follow-up Comment #2, bug #60077 (project make):
I admit I wasn't too thrilled about making $@ behave differently between
explicit and pattern rules, but I definitely did not want to change the long
standing pattern rule behaviour and didn't find the grouped-target $@ useful.
I had proposed $! for instigating target, but I can see that the inconsistency
in that would be worse than the solution.
I'm not sure why I didn't like the idea of $(firstword $&), but likely because
I was too focused on $@ not behaving the way it did with my pseudo
grouped-targets by macro :-)
I had not thought about $(@^) and $(@<), but I like the consistency they have
with the existing variables.
I wrote my patch last fall and other priorities have delayed our move to 4.3.
If I get back to it before someone else, I will implement these and provide a
new patch.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?60077>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
