Re: Generators vs. Make

From: vladimir_prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-02 10:05:33

> > Consider
> >
> > R ----- 1.F ------ 1.Y ------ 1.X1
> > | \ \------- 1.X2
> > | \---------- 1.Z ----- 1.X3
> > | \------ 1.X4
> > \ ----- 2.F ------ 2.Y ------ 2.X1
> > \ \------- 2.X2
> > \---------- 2.Z ----- 2.X3
> > \------ 2.X4
> >
> >
> > This graph is no problem for make, but is impossible with our
> > approach. First, generator for R will break all sources apart.
> > Second, we never
> > considered target names. In this example, 1.X1 should be combined
> > with 1.X2 but not with 2.X2
> >
> > We can try to support this kind of graph -- this has some
> > implementation problem but maybe they can be overcome. However, 
do we
> > need it?
> 
> I'm not convinced that it's neccessary to be able to automatically 
deduce
> target grouping from the source target names involved. Are there any
> examples of this sort of thing in the real world?

I haven't seen any. So, if anybody here knows real world example,
please speak out!

> > What do you think? Do we need to support this make-like graphs? Or
> > should I clarify my question?
> 
> The graph is certainly possible in our current scheme, just not 
implcitly.
> IOW, there would have to be an explicit main target for 1.F, 2.F, 
1.Y, 1.Z,
> 2.Y, and 2.Z.
> 
> I don't think that's a serious limitation.

We agree so far. Hope we won't run into problem later.
I'd have to implement some grouping of targets to support my
use case in m2-transformations.txt, but that grouping will be 
explicit and won't depend on
names.

- Volodya