From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Apr 21 16:45:42 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id QAA25032
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 16:45:42 -0700
Received: from trout.sri.MT.net (trout.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.12])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA25026
          ; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 16:45:37 -0700
Received: (from nate@localhost) by trout.sri.MT.net (8.6.11/8.6.11) id RAA14054; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 17:49:40 -0600
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 17:49:40 -0600
From: Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.MT.net>
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)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com>, hackers@freefall.cdrom.com
Subject: Re: Any objection to adding a .undef(VARNAME) to make?
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 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