On Wed, 2020-11-04 at 12:01 +0000, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > I haven't been able to come up with a common initial statement that > is preferable to just describing the two methods separately. So > unless someone else wants to give it a go, I suggest that I should > restructure that part along these lines: > > The <i>make</i> utility shall use one of the following two methods > to attempt to create the file or bring it up-to-date: > > 1. The "immediate remaking" method > > If <i>make</i> uses this method, any target rules or inference > rules for the pathname that were parsed before the include line > was parsed shall be used to attempt to create the file or to > bring it up-to-date before opening the file. > > 2. The "delayed remaking" method > > If <i>make</i> uses this method, no attempt shall be made to > create the file or bring it up-to-date until after the > makefile(s) have been read. During processing of the include > line, <i>make</i> shall read the current contents of the file, > if it exists, or treat it as an empty file if it does not exist. > Once the makefile(s) have been read, <i>make</i> shall use any > applicable target rule or inference rule for the pathname, > regardless of whether it is parsed before or after the include > line, when creating the file or bringing it up-to-date.
This seems OK to me. I like the idea of using two separate sections; the process seems different enough that it's confusing to shoe-horn it into a single one.
