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
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.