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. /Thomas -- -- tup-users mailing list email: tup-users@googlegroups.com unsubscribe: tup-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com options: http://groups.google.com/group/tup-users?hl=en --- 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 to tup-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
