On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Waldek Hebisch wrote: > Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > > AX_FLAGS presents far less technical problems than ENV does; in fact, > > I would be very much interested in the problems you see with AX_FLAGS > > that is not present with ENV. > > > > I asked for technical reasons, the serious reason I have been offered > > is that "you dislike it more than ENV". THAT reads "gratuituous" > > difference in my book. > > > > First, I see no problem with name: since we can not use ENV changing > it to AX_FLAGS is OK. My basic objection is that AX_FLAGS is redundant. > We already have mechanizm to propagate values to subdirectories: > we use var-def.mk.
Well, if that is the basis of your objection, then it has no foundation. The purpose of AX_FLAGS is not to propagate values to subdirectories. The purpose of AX_FLAGS is to propagate values to *sub-processes*, much like MAKEFLAGS. Until very recently, that is a very simple, reliable way of communicating values without duplication. > So AX_FLAGS establishes parallel chanel, > which has significant potential for bugs and confusion. > > The problem I see in writing > > make AX_FLAGS > > (as opposed to) > > AX_FLAGS make > > is that we override thing in Makefile. But we are effectively > "broadcasting" AX_FLAGS down which looks like abuse of mechanizm > designed for something else (that is allowing default in > Makfile but sometimes taking alternate values). That is an abuse only if you're mistaken about the purpose. > The second extra problem is that AX_FLAGS is new code, Excuse me, but that is bullshit. -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
