Re: .ONESHELL enhancement?

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Eric Melski <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm suggesting that this is how .ONESHELL ought to be implemented.  I don't
> see much benefit from your alternative proposal except for your build
> auditor use case, but if we could use an arbitrary interpreter for command
> recipes -- wow!  The possibilities are very exciting, imho.  A feature like
> this might have obviated the creation of tools like Scons, for example.

Agree. I was one of those who played with SHELL=perl long ago but was
defeated by that pesky -c (and also the fact that perl isn't in a
reliable path so you need an execvp to find it, which if I remember
was a problem at the time). An arbitrary interpreter could be very
cool.

> True.  Note though that writing the recipe to a temp file and invoking it
> with "$(SHELL) tmpfile" would satisfy both our goals, and I think the  worry
> about creating a temp file for each target is overblown.

For the record, it's not my worry per se, I was just predicting a
general reaction. Of course my record predicting the reaction to
.ONESHELL was not very good either ...

DSB