From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Apr 21 19:17:57 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id TAA28989 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 19:17:57 -0700 Received: from gndrsh.aac.dev.com (gndrsh.aac.dev.com [198.145.92.241]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id TAA28976 ; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 19:17:47 -0700 Received: (from rgrimes@localhost) by gndrsh.aac.dev.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id TAA00576; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 19:15:12 -0700 From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <199504220215.TAA00576@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> Subject: Re: Any objection to adding a .undef(VARNAME) to make? To: jkh@freefall.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 19:15:11 -0700 (PDT) Cc: hackers@freefall.cdrom.com In-Reply-To: <24740.798506728@freefall.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Apr 21, 95 04:25:28 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 818 Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > The subject says it all.. > > 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'? > > Yes, it will make us non-standard, but we're essentially ALREADY > non-standard due to having a build system from hell that nobody else > is going to adopt without taking our make, too. It sure would help if you read psd:12 from your 4.4 manual set if your going to do much more with Make. On page 12-7 you will see #undef variable described. Note that our make uses .undef, and I have tested it, and it works. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Accurate Automation Company Custom computers for FreeBSD