On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 02:44 +0700, Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The
Open Group wrote:
>   | The fact that bmake prints a warning if you try to "overwrite" a rule
>   | is another hint that my proposal to first require an explicit removal
>   | with the same pattern and no command before permitting to redefine a
>   | rule is the better way for a potential future. 

I have no problem with POSIX requiring this, since it is compatible
with how GNU make works, as long as POSIX does not specify a behavior
(such as a warning) if a pattern is redefined _without_ first being
removed.

  • [1003.1(2008... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2008... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2008... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2008... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2008... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2008... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2008... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2008... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2008... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • Re: [1003.1(... Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • Re: [10... Paul Smith via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • Re: [10... Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2008... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group

Reply via email to