[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bug in $(call ...) ?
From: |
Paul D. Smith |
Subject: |
Re: Bug in $(call ...) ? |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:18:08 -0500 |
%% Boris Kolpackov <address@hidden> writes:
bk> As you can see there is some symmetry in current logic. Now having
bk> said that I tend to agree that the first case is somewhat
bk> surprising at the least and should be fixed. Paul seems to
bk> disagree with this, however.
I didn't say I disagreed, I said that any change to the expansion rules,
even for just one function, needs to be carefully examined.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <address@hidden> Find some GNU make tips at:
http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
- Re: Bug in $(call ...) ?, (continued)
- Re: Bug in $(call ...) ?, Ken Smith, 2004/12/20
- Re: Bug in $(call ...) ?, Alexey Neyman, 2004/12/20
- Re: Bug in $(call ...) ?, Boris Kolpackov, 2004/12/20
- Re: Bug in $(call ...) ?, Paul D. Smith, 2004/12/20
- Re: Bug in $(call ...) ?, Alexey Neyman, 2004/12/21
- Re: Bug in $(call ...) ?, Boris Kolpackov, 2004/12/21
- Re: Bug in $(call ...) ?,
Paul D. Smith <=
- Re: Bug in $(call ...) ?, Boris Kolpackov, 2004/12/21
- Re: Bug in $(call ...) ?, Paul D. Smith, 2004/12/24