Warp wrote:
> What is it that I'm not understanding?

I've already explained it every way possible. I don't think explaining it 
again is going to make you understand, because for you, "understand" seems 
to mean "agree with."

>   How would you enhance the whole makefile process so that it *would*
> conform to your needs?

I already gave several examples of this as well.

>> Are you telling me that the need for duplicating that sort of information is 
>> a *good* idea? Or do you admit that needing that information in two 
>> different places in two different forms is indeed a limitation that it would 
>> be desirable to eliminate?
> 
>   Exactly how would you eliminate the need?

I've given several examples of how to do this.

>   What happens if you have a custom format which has similar kinds of
> dependencies? How do you expect it to work then?

I've given several examples of how to do this.

>   You still can't get over the fact that 'make' is a generic tool.

Oddly enough, so are many of the other build systems that nevertheless don't 
require you to list dependencies in multiple places. Several examples of 
which I have already given.

>> That said, there are many alternatives to make, some of which even generate 
>> makefiles as output.
> 
>   So you do and don't oppose the idea of using third-party tools to generate
> the dependencies. Double-think?

No. That would be silly. I think generating makefiles as output from such 
third-party tools is limiting and error-prone.  But for some reason, you 
seem to think "generating dependencies" and "makefiles" are the same thing. 
  They're not, in ways in which I've given several examples.  I don't object 
to tools that fix some of the problems with Make. That doesn't mean Make is 
a good tool.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message