On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Noel Yap wrote: > Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > there *is*, of course, a difference between a)/b) and c) in that, in the > > docs, a) and b) refer to getting a variable from the "environment", while > > c) is described as getting a variable value as a "command argument", and > > those situations are clearly processed differently depending on whether > > you want to override that value in the makefile, etc. that is, a simple > > assignment in a makefile will override a value coming in as part of the > > *environment*, but not as a command argument (unless you use the > > "override" directive, etc.). is this accurate so far? > > This sounds familiar although I haven't memorized the details. IMHO, > taking advantage of this doesn't scale well since no one ever remembers > the details.
exactly. :-) one more piece of clarification. in section 6.9, i read: "Every environment variable that make sees when it starts up is transformed into a make variable with the same name and value." so this means, then, that there is no effective difference between getting an environment variable from a caller, and creating (and exporting) a variable within a makefile? would it be more technically correct to rephrase the sentence above by appending "... and then exported"? since if you just assign a value to a variable, that will *not* be available to sub-makes unless you export it first. am i making sense? there's only decaf left here. grrr ... rday _______________________________________________ Help-make mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-make
