Re: .ONESHELL enhancement?

[David Boyce]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Eric Melski <address@hidden> wrote:
>  If you imagine that
> the command recipe is written to a temporary file and invoked as, eg, "sh
> script.sh" when .ONESHELL is enabled, it would allow you to use arbitrary
> interpreters as your shell.

True - but are you imagining or suggesting? I don't think it's likely
that make will be changed to _actually_ write its recipes to a temp
file (though what do I know, I'm just an occasional lurker). And if
you don't use a temp file you have the command line problem (sh -c vs
perl -e vs ???).

There's also the fact that interpreters other than sh may not have a
"set -e" equivalent, though I suspect that once you've reassigned
SHELL you're off the POSIX patch anyway. All I see in the standard on
this question is "Other effects of defining SHELL in the makefile or
on the command line are implementation-defined."

I believe BSD make has the capacity to present the recipe to $(SHELL)
on stdin, but that raises its own set of compatibility issues IIRC.

> This wouldn't work with the "concatenate with &&" proposal.

Yes, but the "concatenate with &&"  proposal seems to have devolved
into the "don't bother splitting on newlines" proposal anyway, so
these unfortunate assumptions about the value of $(SHELL) go away.

DSB