On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 00:58, Tim Dawson wrote: > This, IMHO, makes it worth adding. Especially (though I didn't illustrate > this) when you have a bunch of out-of-target tasks that work, it gets > really confusing as to why parts of compile would work but not others...
Well I disagree. I prefer to have one rule rather than two. So I would prefer all dependencies to be explicit instead of their being two trees (an init tree and a real tree). What happens when both init tree and real dependency tree include same target? or when init tree fails? or ... Entirely too messy in my mind. > Alternately, we should just allow anything to appear at the root level, > because that is the init task. Ok, I'm being facetious - I wouldn't really > want this, but it is a logical extension of the current position. And a few people have wanted/suggested this in the past ;) -- Cheers, Pete "Reefers and roach clips and papers and rollers Cocaine and procaine for twenty year molars Reds and peyote to work out your bugs These are a few of my favorite drugs."
