Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   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.

  You mentioned some XML file format used by XNA. You want built-in support
in 'make' for that format?

> >> 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.

  By adding built-in support for every single such format in existence to
'make'?

  All your examples are of the type "I'm doing a project in [some IDE]
and there are some [IDE-specific] resources and, surprise surprise, the
IDE has support for automatically tracking the dependencies of those
resources". You have not given any *generic* answer to the question, only
very *specific* ones.

> >   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.

  I don't remember a single one. You just talked about some XML files which
are specific to XNA.

> >   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.

  You seem to be obsessed now with the "dependencies in multiple places"
thing, yet when I ask where exactly is the duplication in the example
I gave, you don't answer.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message