Hi Paul, Sorry, that was part of my earlier email - I understand that this is not possible currently. The question was - if I wanted to implement the behavior in make itself, would I have to basically write my own make? I know that Guile is a choice for extending make with custom code, but it seems to me like that is only for adding functions, not adding to core behavior like pattern rules, or am I missing something there?
best regards, David Am 21. Oktober 2019 14:36:04 MESZ schrieb Paul Smith <[email protected]>: >On Mon, 2019-10-21 at 07:51 +0200, David Deutsch wrote: >> On 10/21/19 7:29 AM, Paul Smith wrote: >> > I can only assume that the rules in question are pattern rules. If >> > they were explicit rules then make would indeed give you a more >clear >> > declaration of which file is missing. >> >> Actually, I'm quite sure that they are explicit rules. I will try to >put >> together a simple example to recreate the issue. > >OK. > >> > Unfortunately I didn't really understand the process you're using. >Why >> > do you need to write hundreds or thousands of makefiles? >> >> I think the process I'm using is best understood by its requirement: >> Pattern rules with multiple, named %'s. I call them blueprints and >they >> produce makefiles that give you the set of targets and recipes to >create >> complex prerequisites. > >OK, but, make doesn't support multiple pattern characters in a single >target, as you're aware. So I'm not sure what exactly you're asking us >to comment on. -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet. _______________________________________________ Help-make mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-make
