On Tue, 2022-04-12 at 14:58 -0700, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > I also somewhat regret implementing the feature because it is > unnecessary. > The feature is built on the the implementation of pattern rules, > which already supported multiple targets many years before &:.
Just to mention that these options including &: and just using pattern rules were discussed in the GitHub issue and the followup comments so these were known to the folks implementing the change. I don't really agree that using pattern rules is a sufficient alternative. Forcing targets to have a common stem is not always great. I for one am happy that this feature exists!
