Re: bjam rationale...

From: Larry Evans (cppljevans_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-16 13:35:54

On 12/16/2004 07:03 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Larry Evans wrote:
> 
> 
>>On 12/16/2004 03:23 AM, Tompa wrote:
>>
>>>Vladimir Prus <ghost <at> cs.msu.su> writes:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>I think that make does not even allow to create a user-defined function,
>>>>and so it completely non-suitable to the task.
[snip]
>>This user-defined function can be any shell script. An example
>>is:
>>
>> include $(shell echo default.imk|tee -a Makefile.d)
>>
>>which includes default.imk into the Makefile and records
>>it's inclusion in Makefile.d. 'echo default.imk' can be replaced
>>by a user defined shell script.
> 
> 
> Do you really mean that invoking *shell* is a good substitute for functions.
> At least, that's going to be many orders of magnitude slower.
> 
True, however, it's probably an order of magnitude faster than a single
compilation; hence, it won't have much impact on the user. And I was
responding to:

*think* that make does not even allow to create a user-defined
function

:) You seemed to have some doubt (the *think*), and that's why I 
mentioned the shell alternative.