Re: Make and makefile bugs (PRs 49085, 49086, 49087)

[Valery Ushakov <uwe%stderr.spb.ru@localhost>]

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 13:16:11 +0300, Jarmo Jaakkola wrote:

> > >Note that the functionality of .NULL is actually a subset of the single
> > >suffix transformations.  If you had the rules .a.b and .c.d, and files
> > >foo.a and bar.c, you couldn't make both foo and bar with the same
> > >makefile with .NULL only.
> > 
> > Right, but that can be fixed.
> 
> Do you mean that .NULL should support multiple suffixes?  Sounds a bit
> hairy.

I don't understand.  .NULL is a syntactic crutch that is ncessary
since transformation rule syntax requires two suffixes.  But there's
just one empty suffix, so why would you need multiple .NULL suffixes -
except for obvious considerations of modularity, but that's somewhat
orthogonal, as .NULL suffix already conflicts with a real suffix.

-uwe