Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 17:49:40 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.MT.net> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com>, hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: Any objection to adding a .undef(VARNAME) to make? Message-ID: <199504212349.RAA14054@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com> "Any objection to adding a .undef(VARNAME) to make?" (Apr 21, 4:25pm)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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 Hmm, that might work, but would make 'undefined' a reserved word which is IMHO a bad thing. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504212349.RAA14054>