Re: .ONESHELL enhancement?

Matt McCutchen wrote:

> But note the following in the standard:
> 
>> The single-shell method has the advantages in [...] the lack of a
>> requirement for many continued lines.
> 
> So they are viewing the command recipe as a single shell script, and
> constructs like the following would be legal:
> 
> foo: bar
> 	if test -s $<
> 	then
> 		echo 'nonempty' >$@
> 	else
> 		echo 'empty' >$@
> 	fi

I assumed that this was the intended use of .ONESHELL.  If you imagine 
that the command recipe is written to a temporary file and invoked as, 
eg, "sh script.sh" when .ONESHELL is enabled, it would allow you to use 
arbitrary interpreters as your shell.  For example:

.ONESHELL:
SHELL=/bin/perl
all:
	print "foo\n";
	print "bar\n";

This wouldn't work with the "concatenate with &&" proposal.

Best regards,

Eric Melski
http://blog.electric-cloud.com/