[bug #51338] Support for construction patterns by make functions

[Paul D. Smith]

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #51338 (project make):

> I suggest to give some make rule combinations (pairs, trios, …) another
look.

That doesn't constitute a specific design.  You've provided an example of
makefile syntax that works today, in your initial description.  Clearly you
are not satisfied with that since you opened this bug report, but I can't tell
exactly what aspects of the current capabilities you want to be different. 
After the example you point to a number of general concepts (which are not
clearly related) and then suggest we "give them another look".  That's not a
design, it's basically a request to "please make things better".

When I say a specific design I mean, one or more actual examples of a new
makefile syntax that would work better for your purposes than the syntax which
is currently available, and a description of precisely how the examples should
be interpreted.  I'm not suggesting you implement it, or even that it be
completely consistent.  Indeed I don't recommend you spend a huge amount of
time on it because unless it's many times better than what we have already I
doubt it would be acceptable; as I mentioned before there's a huge cost to
adding new features so they must be more than just a slightly different way to
get the same results.

But without SOME sort of concrete example of what you are thinking about, we
are at an impasse.

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?51338>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/