[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: suddenly, "recursive make considered harmful" makes piles of sense
From: |
Alessandro Vesely |
Subject: |
Re: suddenly, "recursive make considered harmful" makes piles of sense |
Date: |
Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:45:32 +0100 |
"Robert P. J. Day" wrote:
> [...]
> and it was just yesterday that it suddenly dawned on me how to make
> this much simpler, and only after i started redesigning the structure
> did it occur to me that this might be what miller's paper might be
> talking about.
It is not. Peter Miller's emphasis is about make being able to traverse
the whole dependency tree the way it reckons, rather that traversing
it a sub-tree at a time in the order dictated by the top-level makefile
without ever being able to see the whole tree at once. E.g. using
`include' rather than `$(MAKE)'.
- suddenly, "recursive make considered harmful" makes piles of sense, Robert P. J. Day, 2005/01/14
- Re: suddenly, "recursive make considered harmful" makes piles of sense,
Alessandro Vesely <=
- Re: suddenly, "recursive make considered harmful" makes piles of sense, Robert P. J. Day, 2005/01/15
- Re: suddenly, "recursive make considered harmful" makes piles of sense, Boris Kolpackov, 2005/01/18
- Re: suddenly, "recursive make considered harmful" makes piles of sense, Noel Yap, 2005/01/19
- Re: suddenly, "recursive make considered harmful" makes piles of sense, Paul D. Smith, 2005/01/19
- Re: suddenly, "recursive make considered harmful" makes piles of sense, Noel Yap, 2005/01/19
- Re: suddenly, "recursive make considered harmful" makes piles of sense, Boris Kolpackov, 2005/01/19
- Re: suddenly, "recursive make considered harmful" makes piles of sense, Paul D. Smith, 2005/01/19