Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 00:22:58 +0100 From: Nik Clayton <nik@freebsd.org> To: Jun Kuriyama <kuriyama@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO_8859-1/books/faq Makefile Message-ID: <19990901002258.B71024@catkin.nothing-going-on.org> In-Reply-To: <199908311459.HAA73710@freefall.freebsd.org>; from Jun Kuriyama on Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 07:59:49AM -0700 References: <199908311459.HAA73710@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Aug 31, 1999 at 07:59:49AM -0700, Jun Kuriyama wrote:
> kuriyama 1999/08/31 07:59:49 PDT
>
> Modified files:
> en_US.ISO_8859-1/books/faq Makefile
> Log:
> We have used ${VAR}, not $(VAR ) . :- )
Well spotted.
Convention in /usr/share/mk/*.mk shows that ${VAR} is preferred over
$(VAR), but make.1 doesn't imply that there's any difference between them.
I've always used ${VAR} (probably influenced by FreeBSD) but is there
any particular reason to use one form over the other?
N
--
[intentional self-reference] can be easily accommodated using a blessed,
non-self-referential dummy head-node whose own object destructor severs
the links.
-- Tom Christiansen in <375143b5@cs.colorado.edu>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990901002258.B71024>