On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 11:07 -0700, Zoltan wrote:
> Not exactly escaping '$' with '$$'. From your example of $(info ...), I'm
> actually suggesting to escape '$(' with '$$('. So not quite the same thing at
> all. And this is already implemented, and already "explained," so no extra
> work there.
Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Can you provide an
example of what you mean? How would this rule, for example:
all:
@echo 'variable $$(foo) is bar'
which currently prints:
variable $(foo) is bar
fare under the change you're suggesting? Or a bit more realistically:
include my.mk
my.mk: ; @echo '$$(OBJDIR)/foo.o: foo.c' > $@
And are you suggesting that we would treat $$(foo) differently than
$$foo or $${foo} when expanding recipes?
> For cases of recipe lines that do not have a '$(' construct, would there
> actually be any difference at all, whether or not you change the expansion
> style? I can't think of one...or maybe its just I can't think...at any rate,
> your proposed change primarily impacts recipe lines with '$(...)' on them.
> The rest, not so much...
I'm not following this either...? The change I suggest would also
change when ${eval ...} is expanded, just as it would $(eval ...) ...?
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
