On Wed, 2021-09-08 at 19:06 +0200, Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l
at The Open Group wrote:
> Hasn't it been explained many times that the non-orthogonal behavior
> of gmake for the += operator

Clearly not, since I asked the question.  So the reason for this new
operator is related to +=; to allow a recursive append to a variable
that was assigned an immediately expanded value.  That is not clear
from the text added to the standard.

I don't see why this couldn't have been the simple reply to my initial
question as to why this operator is useful, which would have avoided
all the other sturm und drang that's gone on here.  Perhaps the reason
for adding it wasn't clear to everyone else, either.

However, given that there IS a substantive difference between these two
operators that I can explain in the GNU make manual I'm OK with
implementing this operator in GNU make.

        • Re: [Is... Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • Re: [Is... Paul Smith via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • Re: [Is... Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • Re: [Is... David A. Wheeler via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • Re: [Is... Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • Re: [Is... David A. Wheeler via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • Re: [Is... Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • Re: [Is... David A. Wheeler via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • Re: [Is... Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • Re: [Is... Scott Lurndal via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • Re: [Is... Paul Smith via austin-group-l at The Open Group
      • Re: [Issue ... Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • Re: [Is... Paul Smith via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • Re: [Is... Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • Re: [Issue 8 drafts ... Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open Group

Reply via email to