"Paul Smith via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
<austin-group-l@opengroup.org> wrote:
> I asked for examples, or explanations of situations, where using the
> POSIX ::= operator as currently defined isn't sufficient, and the
> different behavior of the :::= operator is required instead.
Hasn't it been explained many times that the non-orthogonal behavior of gmake
for the += operator for macros created with the gmake := operator is a source
of unpredictable behavior, in special if large layered (via include) makefile
systems are used and you cannot easily see how a macro was initially created?
The :::= operator fixes this and allows to predict how other operators behave.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.net Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/
