Re: intermediate files

[ali hagigat]

I wonder if any body can change the following example a bit not to
update b (or my.c) as the manual mentioned, my.c is an intermediate
file:

> %.c: %.c.in
>         cp $<  $@
>
> %.o: %.c
>         cp $<  $@
>
>    $ echo hello>my.c.in
>    $ make my.o
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.4 Chains of Implicit Rules
But if b is an intermediate file, then make can leave well
enough alone. It won’t bother updating b, or the ultimate target,
unless some prerequisite of b is newer than that target or there is
some other reason to update that target.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> from  Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
>reply-to       Eli Zaretskii
> Note the last part: "or there is some other reason".  In this case,
> the reason is that my.c is needed to get to my.o.

Because 'my.c' does not exist, there is always a reason to update it!!
so when it won't be updated while it does not exist as the manual
promised?

> This is a frequently used English idiom.  "Leave something alone"
> means not to touch it in any way.  In this case, it means Make will
> not try to create B if it is an intermediate file that does not exist.

but the manual is saying:
"...then make can leave well enough alone."
You mentioned that, leave something alone is an idiom in English but
where is "something" here?

> It won't update it.  Again, "won't bother doing something" means
> "won't do it".
Why we do not use the simpler English sentence when 'won't bother
updating' is equal to 'it won't update'?
"bother updating is heavy for non English people" when a person is
struggling to find out the logic.