Re: Dropping "call" operator?

[Paul Smith]

On Wed, 2023-12-27 at 21:45 -0800, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> What would be wrong with allowing the $(call ...) operator to be
> elided? 
> 
> Instead $(call macro,a,b,c), why can't we have $(macro a,b,c), if
> macro doesn't shadow a built-in function? 
> 
> When there are no arguments, we cal invoke it as $(macro), but when
> there are arguments $(call ...) must be used. 
> 
> The presence of arguments can be used to deduce that a macro call
> with arguments is to take place. 

I have considered doing this, but only AFTER it becomes an error (not
just a warning) to create a make variable with whitespace in the name.

-- 
Paul D. Smith <psmith@gnu.org>            Find some GNU Make tips at:
https://www.gnu.org                       http://make.mad-scientist.net
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad
Scientist