Proposals for changes to searching behaviour
Tue, 10 Dec 2002 04:44:22 +1100
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 12:03:10PM -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> If, say, a library consists of the top-level module "A.B.C" and
> a bunch of internal components "A.B.C.M1", "A.B.C.M2", etc.,
> I can't see why I should not be allowed to put them all in one
I think that's the selling point for me. I'm now convinced it's
a good idea.
That being said, I wrote that message because I've been
struggling with obscure build tools for the last few days, which
work fine until they break -- then you're in for hours of pain.
So I prefer to stick to fairly obvious, explicit ways of doing
something, and I guess I saw Simon's second suggestion as another
way to have more pain-inducing bizarre build schemes via make.
(Of course, this relies on the developer wanting to invent
bizarre Makefiles, but I've seen _plenty_ of Makefiles where
I can't even _begin_ to work out how they work. That's my fear.)
> Another reason is how it interacts with tools like "Make". I've
> already mentioned the VPATH mechanism.
It's all bad once that VPATH word gets mentioned ;).
#ozone/algorithm <email@example.com> - trust.in.love.to.save