[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Static multiple target rules
From: |
Edward Welbourne |
Subject: |
Re: Static multiple target rules |
Date: |
Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:08:03 +0200 |
> (While I don't think the sysV syntax is *great*, I personally think
> it's a better choice than overloading the meaning of parentheses.)
+1
It also avoids the problem of having to make sense of nesting, e.g.
>> (b1 (c1 c2)): d1
Eddy.
- Re: Static multiple target rules, (continued)
- Re: Static multiple target rules, Edward Welbourne, 2010/03/02
- RE: Static multiple target rules, Martin Dorey, 2010/03/02
- Re: Static multiple target rules, tom honermann, 2010/03/02
- Re: Static multiple target rules, Edward Welbourne, 2010/03/03
- Re: Static multiple target rules, tom honermann, 2010/03/29
- Re: Static multiple target rules, tom honermann, 2010/03/29
- Re: Static multiple target rules, Edward Welbourne, 2010/03/30
- Re: Static multiple target rules, tom honermann, 2010/03/31
- Re: Static multiple target rules, tom honermann, 2010/03/29
- Re: Static multiple target rules, Philip Guenther, 2010/03/29
- Re: Static multiple target rules,
Edward Welbourne <=
- Re: Static multiple target rules, tom honermann, 2010/03/31
- Re: Static multiple target rules, tom honermann, 2010/03/31
- Re: Static multiple target rules, tom honermann, 2010/03/31
- Re: Static multiple target rules, tom honermann, 2010/03/31