On 06 Oct 2003 00:32:54 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > Eric Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > +## We need to > > +## recognize all cases, so we check simply for "j" in MAKEFLAGS, since > > +## that seems to be the lowest common denominator. > But that could find instances of 'j' in MAKEFLAGS that have nothing > to do with jobs. How about this more-conservative patch instead?
Okay, though I might suggest upgrading the comment a bit in order to explain whey the MAKEFLAGS regexp is so complicated and non-obvious. A future programmer might not understand why we have to jump through such hoops to interpret MAKEFLAGS (which is why I provided a more explicit comment in my patch). -- ES
