Walter

What are the chances of making the following parse (in the same way some
other makes do):

OBJS_CPP = \
    \
    \
    .\pch.obj  \
    .\newdel_w.obj \
    .\MLCrtSct.obj \
    .\MLSync.obj \
    .\MMComBsc.obj \
    .\MOBStrFn.obj \
    .\MOComFns.obj \
    .\MOConnPt.obj \
    .\MOConv.obj \
    .\MODisp.obj \
    .\MOEnBSTR.obj \
    .\MOEnGuid.obj \
    .\MOEnStr.obj \
    .\MOEnUnk.obj \
    .\MOEnUnVr.obj \
    .\MOEnVar.obj \
    .\MOError.obj \
    .\MOFTM.obj  \
    .\MOFTP.obj  \
    .\MOMemLkB.obj \
    .\MOOleStr.obj \
    .\MOProp.obj \
    .\MOPrpBag.obj \
    .\MOPrpPgs.obj \
    .\MOPSBuff.obj \
    .\MOPsClXX.obj \
#    .\MOPsEnXX.obj \
    .\MOPSGuid.obj \
#    .\MOPsSqXX.obj \
#    .\MOPsUnk.obj \
    .\MORegLkB.obj \
    .\MORegSvr.obj \
    .\MOSafeAr.obj \
    .\MOStorge.obj \
    .\MOStream.obj \
    .\MOVar.obj  \
    .\MWRegUtl.obj \
    \

Rather than forcing me to move the stuff around, as in:

OBJS_CPP = \
    \
    \
    .\pch.obj  \
    .\newdel_w.obj \
    .\MLCrtSct.obj \
    .\MLSync.obj \
    .\MMComBsc.obj \
    .\MOBStrFn.obj \
    .\MOComFns.obj \
    .\MOConnPt.obj \
    .\MOConv.obj \
    .\MODisp.obj \
    .\MOEnBSTR.obj \
    .\MOEnGuid.obj \
    .\MOEnStr.obj \
    .\MOEnUnk.obj \
    .\MOEnUnVr.obj \
    .\MOEnVar.obj \
    .\MOError.obj \
    .\MOFTM.obj  \
    .\MOFTP.obj  \
    .\MOMemLkB.obj \
    .\MOOleStr.obj \
    .\MOProp.obj \
    .\MOPrpBag.obj \
    .\MOPrpPgs.obj \
    .\MOPSBuff.obj \
    .\MOPsClXX.obj \
    .\MOPSGuid.obj \
    .\MORegLkB.obj \
    .\MORegSvr.obj \
    .\MOSafeAr.obj \
    .\MOStorge.obj \
    .\MOStream.obj \
    .\MOVar.obj  \
    .\MWRegUtl.obj \
    \

#    .\MOPsEnXX.obj \
#    .\MOPsSqXX.obj \
#    .\MOPsUnk.obj \

I'd be quite happy to do the coding myself.

Matthew Wilson schrieb...
> Walter
> 
> What are the chances of making the following parse (in the same way some
> other makes do):
> 
> OBJS_CPP = \
>     \
>     \
> [snip]
>     .\MOPSBuff.obj \
>     .\MOPsClXX.obj \
> #    .\MOPsEnXX.obj \
>     .\MOPSGuid.obj \
> #    .\MOPsSqXX.obj \
> #    .\MOPsUnk.obj \
>     .\MORegLkB.obj \
>     .\MORegSvr.obj \
>     .\MOSafeAr.obj \

It might look fine to allow this. On the other hand, everyone knows that \ as last character on a line removes the EOL. Do you know any other make that would allow your proposed extension?

- Heinz

Heinz Saathoff <hsaat@bre.ipnet.de> wrote in news:MPG.1952496136b92b249896c1@news.digitalmars.com:

> Matthew Wilson schrieb...
>> Walter
>> 
>> What are the chances of making the following parse (in the same way some
>> other makes do):
>> 
>> OBJS_CPP = \
>>     \
>>     \
>> [snip]
>>     .\MOPSBuff.obj \
>>     .\MOPsClXX.obj \
>> #    .\MOPsEnXX.obj \
>>     .\MOPSGuid.obj \
>> #    .\MOPsSqXX.obj \
>> #    .\MOPsUnk.obj \
>>     .\MORegLkB.obj \
>>     .\MORegSvr.obj \
>>     .\MOSafeAr.obj \
> 
> It might look fine to allow this. On the other hand, everyone knows that \ as last character on a line removes the EOL. Do you know any other make that would allow your proposed extension?
> 
> - Heinz

I guess he was talking about being able to have commented lines in the middle without having to move them to the end and if I recall correctly make under AIX allows this but it's been 3 years since I used IBM's compiler (x_lc if I remember correctly) under that OS.

If not, disregard this comment.


/gf

Indeed. Sorry if it was not clear, everybody, it just seemed obvious to me (these things always do ...)

As for which other makes - both Borland's make.exe (5.6) and Microsoft's
(5.0, 6.0, 7.0) accept the syntax, which makes it a lot easier when working
one's way through v.large projects that contain multiple errors (as a result
of porting from one compiler to another)




"gf" <mz_y2k@yahoo...com> wrote in message news:Xns9398628E5FC43mzy2kyahoocom@63.105.9.61...
> Heinz Saathoff <hsaat@bre.ipnet.de> wrote in news:MPG.1952496136b92b249896c1@news.digitalmars.com:
>
> > Matthew Wilson schrieb...
> >> Walter
> >>
> >> What are the chances of making the following parse (in the same way
some
> >> other makes do):
> >>
> >> OBJS_CPP = \
> >>     \
> >>     \
> >> [snip]
> >>     .\MOPSBuff.obj \
> >>     .\MOPsClXX.obj \
> >> #    .\MOPsEnXX.obj \
> >>     .\MOPSGuid.obj \
> >> #    .\MOPsSqXX.obj \
> >> #    .\MOPsUnk.obj \
> >>     .\MORegLkB.obj \
> >>     .\MORegSvr.obj \
> >>     .\MOSafeAr.obj \
> >
> > It might look fine to allow this. On the other hand, everyone knows that
> > \ as last character on a line removes the EOL.
> > Do you know any other make that would allow your proposed extension?
> >
> > - Heinz
>
> I guess he was talking about being able to have commented lines in the
> middle without having to move them to the end and
> if I recall correctly make under AIX allows this but it's been 3 years
> since I used IBM's compiler (x_lc if I remember correctly) under that OS.
>
> If not, disregard this comment.
>
>
> /gf

In article <Xns9398628E5FC43mzy2kyahoocom@63.105.9.61>, gf says...
>
>Heinz Saathoff <hsaat@bre.ipnet.de> wrote in news:MPG.1952496136b92b249896c1@news.digitalmars.com:
>
>> Matthew Wilson schrieb...
>>> Walter
>>> 
>>> What are the chances of making the following parse (in the same way some
>>> other makes do):
>>> 
>>> OBJS_CPP = \
>>>     \
>>>     \
>>> [snip]
>>>     .\MOPSBuff.obj \
>>>     .\MOPsClXX.obj \
>>> #    .\MOPsEnXX.obj \
>>>     .\MOPSGuid.obj \
>>> #    .\MOPsSqXX.obj \
>>> #    .\MOPsUnk.obj \
>>>     .\MORegLkB.obj \
>>>     .\MORegSvr.obj \
>>>     .\MOSafeAr.obj \
>> 
>> It might look fine to allow this. On the other hand, everyone knows that \ as last character on a line removes the EOL. Do you know any other make that would allow your proposed extension?
>> 
>> - Heinz
>
>I guess he was talking about being able to have commented lines in the middle without having to move them to the end and if I recall correctly make under AIX allows this but it's been 3 years since I used IBM's compiler (x_lc if I remember correctly) under that OS.
>
>If not, disregard this comment.
>
>
>/gf

The point Heinz was trying to make is that when \ effetively removes the EOL you get ... .\MOPsClXX.obj  #    .\MOPsEnXX.obj ... which of course does not count as a comment. What has to be changed is that the comments need to be stripped from the input before the file is actually parsed, or something along those lines.

Regards, Remko van der Vossen

Sure. I got the point.

I wasn't trying to stir up a debate, or indeed score any points; just being a pragmatist (at least that's what I get labelled on DM's newsgroups - which I'm fine with) I wanted a more usable make. :)

Walter, as I said, I'm more than happy to make the change if you wish

<wichetael@gmx.net> wrote in message news:bc9pdl$1a4h$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <Xns9398628E5FC43mzy2kyahoocom@63.105.9.61>, gf says...
> >
> >Heinz Saathoff <hsaat@bre.ipnet.de> wrote in news:MPG.1952496136b92b249896c1@news.digitalmars.com:
> >
> >> Matthew Wilson schrieb...
> >>> Walter
> >>>
> >>> What are the chances of making the following parse (in the same way
some
> >>> other makes do):
> >>>
> >>> OBJS_CPP = \
> >>>     \
> >>>     \
> >>> [snip]
> >>>     .\MOPSBuff.obj \
> >>>     .\MOPsClXX.obj \
> >>> #    .\MOPsEnXX.obj \
> >>>     .\MOPSGuid.obj \
> >>> #    .\MOPsSqXX.obj \
> >>> #    .\MOPsUnk.obj \
> >>>     .\MORegLkB.obj \
> >>>     .\MORegSvr.obj \
> >>>     .\MOSafeAr.obj \
> >>
> >> It might look fine to allow this. On the other hand, everyone knows
that
> >> \ as last character on a line removes the EOL.
> >> Do you know any other make that would allow your proposed extension?
> >>
> >> - Heinz
> >
> >I guess he was talking about being able to have commented lines in the
> >middle without having to move them to the end and
> >if I recall correctly make under AIX allows this but it's been 3 years
> >since I used IBM's compiler (x_lc if I remember correctly) under that OS.
> >
> >If not, disregard this comment.
> >
> >
> >/gf
>
> The point Heinz was trying to make is that when \ effetively removes the
EOL you
> get ... .\MOPsClXX.obj  #    .\MOPsEnXX.obj ... which of course does not
count
> as a comment. What has to be changed is that the comments need to be
stripped
> from the input before the file is actually parsed, or something along
those
> lines.
>
> Regards, Remko van der Vossen
>
>

wichetael@gmx.net schrieb...
> 
> The point Heinz was trying to make is that when \ effetively removes the EOL you get ... .\MOPsClXX.obj  #    .\MOPsEnXX.obj ... which of course does not count as a comment. What has to be changed is that the comments need to be stripped from the input before the file is actually parsed, or something along those lines.

Right, that's what I meant. I'm not sure how the old UNIX make handles this case.

- Heinz

Matthew Wilson schrieb...
> I wasn't trying to stir up a debate, or indeed score any points; just being a pragmatist (at least that's what I get labelled on DM's newsgroups - which I'm fine with) I wanted a more usable make. :)

I see your point but thought what the "standard" for make tells about this.

- Heinz

smake or make?

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:bc89bt$mi$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter
>
> What are the chances of making the following parse (in the same way some
> other makes do):

make.

I've just tried it with smake.exe, and I don't get a makefile syntax error. However, I do get

"SMAKE  Program Maintenance Utility (Console) Version 7.50
Copyright (c) 1994-1995 Innovative Data Concepts Incorporated
Copyright (c) 1994-2001 Digital Mars
All Rights Reserved

SMAKE fatal error: syntax error:
                             -DWIN32 -wx -c
-I..;. -I\Dev\Include;\Dev\IncPriv;\Dev\IncSS;\Dev\Modules\Common\Include -I
"p:\Programs\dm\dm\bin\..\include";"p:\Progr
ams\dm\dm\bin\..\mfc\include";"p:\Programs\dm\dm\bin\..\stl";H:\STLSoft\Iden
tities\STLSoft\stlsoft;P:\PROGRAMS\DM\beta\D
M\include;P:\PROGRAMS\DM\beta\DM\include\win32;P:\PROGRAMS\DM\beta\DM\stl;p:
\Programs\dm\beta\dm\mfc\INCLUDE; -o.\MODatO
bj.obj MODatObj.c": command line too long
Stopping.
"

which is even more terminal. :(

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bcacrh$206c$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> smake or make?
>
> "Matthew Wilson" <matthew@stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:bc89bt$mi$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Walter
> >
> > What are the chances of making the following parse (in the same way some
> > other makes do):
>
>