On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 11:27:30 +0200 I wrote: > On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 00:41:38 -0400 > Jim Weirich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Regarding the behavior of timestamp when the file doesn't exist: > > > > I went with the time stamp of a non-existing file should be a time stamp > > that > > is earlier than any existing file. The biggest reason is that using a late > > time stamp for non-existing files would cause the target to be continually > > rebuilt, and that just doesn't make sense. > > > > Anyways, the change is in the 0.6.0 just out today. > > first, before any one gets angry because i don't just say 'you're right' :-), > i rate this problem (if it's any) as minor. > > > sorry if i'm a a bit (or very) blind, but let me explain why i think you're > both wrong: > > the normal user of Rake, should tell Rake the truth about his dependencies, > i.e. if you insert a dependency the target should only be correctly invokable > if the prerequisite is fullfilled. (any other behaviour is special and can be > changed by each user) > > so the behaviour Patrick mentions is IMO not the general behaviour a Rake > user (should :-) wants, because he inserts dependencies which aren't any (he > does not tell the Rake system everything he knows!) > > so in this "normal" case, what you say Jim (...the target would be > continually rebuilt...) is not right: > the file thats missing would be relevant to rebuilt the target, but since > it's non-existant, the target-rebuilt would fail, so the user would see it > failed and has to correct the problem. > > example: > main.exe needs main.cpp needs main.hpp. you correctly built with rake. then > you rename main.hpp and reinvoke rake, but rake would just do nothing. or say > you changed some pieces of your dependency generator wrongly and it produces > filenames of non-existant files, then rake would not complain, never, not > even a warning. > > > i hope the behaviour i described is understandable. the only question is what > should be the standard, the one you describe or i describe. > i don't know if it would be better to make both behaviours accessable.
hm.. i'm waiting for an anwser. at least it would be nice if you would tell your state: are you still thinking about what the correct solution should be or did you solve this problem in silence? bye Phil
pgpdKwOI8Gs2E.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Rake-devel mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rake-devel
