Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>   So essentially you want the compiler to know what to compile without
>>> you specifying what to compile.
> 
>> Nope. I specified that you want to compile "main".
> 
>   If your program consists of one single file named "main", then it could
> work.

But it doesn't. And in practice, in C, it almost never does. Yet in many 
other languages, it does.

>   Don't forget the context. You were talking about 'make' requiring overly
> complicated steps in order to automatically track the dependencies of
> include files in C programs, and how you don't like that.

Correct. In part, because you (for example) already have to know where all 
the C header files are in order to generate the dependencies to start with.

 > Then, suddenly,
> you come up with a "it's impossible to track dependencies by looking at
> the source code only" argument. 

That is correct also.  But the two are related. If you don't see how they're 
related, then I'm sorry, but you apparently have less experience with really 
crappy C code than I do.

> It was clear from the context that you
> were talking about C in particular, as if the same (quite trivial) problem
> didn't happen in more "advanced" languages.

And, generally, it doesn't. Really. It just doesn't cause the same sort of 
problems. I've never invoked a Java class where I needed to know what order 
to put #include headers in to make it compile.

>   So what's the point?

That you're a master troll? That you're ignoring everything I'm saying that 
conflicts with your view that it just isn't a problem?

-- 
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