On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > "Robert P. J. Day" wrote: > > [...] > > and it was just yesterday that it suddenly dawned on me how to make > > this much simpler, and only after i started redesigning the structure > > did it occur to me that this might be what miller's paper might be > > talking about. > > It is not. Peter Miller's emphasis is about make being able to > traverse the whole dependency tree the way it reckons, rather that > traversing it a sub-tree at a time in the order dictated by the > top-level makefile without ever being able to see the whole tree at > once. E.g. using `include' rather than `$(MAKE)'.
yes, i see what you mean. i hadn't actually finished the paper, but i thought i could see what he was getting at. still, i think philosophically there's some common ground -- i'm seeing a definite advantage in taking control of the lower-level parts of the build process and pulling them back to the top of the tree so i can control the entire process all at the top level (even to the extent, as i described in my next posting, of controlling build options of lower levels at the very top). i'll think on this some more. thanks for the feedback. rday _______________________________________________ Help-make mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-make
