On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Paul Smith <psm...@gnu.org> wrote: > Is there "something special" you would prefer beyond this?
Well ... it's more of a thought than an actual request or preference, but I'm suggesting that make might want to take positive steps in your last case (empty text argument, append to existing file) to force an update of the mod time. Reasons: - Something like $(info touch $@$(file >>$@)) could become an efficient, portable, in-process pattern for "touching" a file. - Make is inherently timestamp based and clear rules are important. It could create a new class of mysterious, hard-to-reproduce bugs if this function sometimes updates the timestamp and other times not depending on the value of the text string. - As you've noted, the current semantics just fall out from POSIX behavior. To the degree practical I think it's a good design principle that timestamp semantics are specified by make (and thus portable), not deferred to the platform or filesystem. Again this is not a request per se, just something to think about before semantics are set in stone. -David Boyce _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
