Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 20:07:25 +0100 (BST) From: Paul Richards <paul@isl.cf.ac.uk> To: nate@trout.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Cc: jkh@freefall.cdrom.com, hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: Any objection to adding a .undef(VARNAME) to make? Message-ID: <199504221907.UAA28460@isl.cf.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <199504212349.RAA14054@trout.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Apr 21, 95 05:49:40 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In reply to Nate Williams who said > > > I've long been bothered by bmake's inability to programmatically unset > > a variable. Assuming that nobody feels it to be too evil a hack to > > live, are there any objections to using the keyword `.undef'? > > I'm kind of partial to '.undefine' myself, but I think the functionality > is a good addition to the utility. Too bad we couldn't find a way > similar to how something is defined to undefine it. > > FOO= 1 > > FOO= undefined Anyone see a problem with FOO= Seems to make sense to me. How many things would that break? -- Paul Richards, FreeBSD core team member. Internet: paul@FreeBSD.org, URL: http://isl.cf.ac.uk/~paul/ Phone: +44 1222 874000 x6646 (work), +44 1222 457651 (home) Dept. Mechanical Engineering, University of Wales, College Cardiff.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504221907.UAA28460>