In this mailing list archive I read about the "legacy" rule syntax... 
Indicating also that Lua syntax is the *new* and shiny syntax. I can see no 
trace of the same articulation on the website, manual or repo.

Is it true that tup native syntax is "old"?

My impression is that what makes tup elegant is the clean syntax in 
Tupfiles. Going for Lua will make tup another "build programming language" 
and probably go down the same path as CMake...

Granted the tup syntax is quite restricted, but I would suggest an approach 
where Lua could be used to extend that syntax, rather than replace it. That 
would make tup a very strong contender to other build systems.

One example is an application where I have some unittests written in files 
ending with '_tests.c', say. If the unit under test is called 'parser' then 
the unittests are in 'parser_tests.c'. Obviously I want to make an 
executable of 'parser.o' and 'parser_tests.o', but not all modules have 
unittests (yet ;-), and I can see no way to write rules that links all 
'*_tests.o' with its corresponding, single, '*.o'

A way to let Lua do the string manipulation that's required in a function 
that could somehow be plugged into the Tupfile rules would be an extremely 
attractive way to approach this.


tup-users mailing list
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"tup-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
For more options, visit

Reply via email to