On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
"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)'.
yes, i see what you mean. i hadn't actually finished the paper, but i
thought i could see what he was getting at.
still, i think philosophically there's some common ground -- i'm
seeing a definite advantage in taking control of the lower-level parts
of the build process and pulling them back to the top of the tree so i
can control the entire process all at the top level (even to the
extent, as i described in my next posting, of controlling build
options of lower levels at the very top).
i'll think on this some more. thanks for the feedback.
rday
_______________________________________________
Help-make mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-make