%% "Eli Zaretskii" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:03:45 +0100 >> From: Alessandro Vesely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> >> > OK... does this mean "yes, I think this patch is useful and should be >> > applied"? >> >> Yes, it does. Or else we should also remove the other HAVE_DOS_PATHS >> in the same function so as to ban backslashes from %-patterns.
ez> The other HAVE_DOS_PATHS fragment handles backslashes in _filenames_, ez> while this one handles backslashes in _patterns_. So they are not ez> equivalent, and their omission for patterns is on purpose (Paul stated ez> the reasons). One thing that could be done, if it was deemed useful, is to make the backslash-in-patterns smarter so that a backslash before a % escaped the %, but a backslash anywhere else was just a backslash. This, obviously, would just be a DOS/Windows change. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at: http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist _______________________________________________ Make-w32 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
