Re: RFC: Plake, a target-based file assembler

One thing I'm still pondering: Should a target be able to include other targets? This would be very Make-like, with real dependencies, but I don't know how useful it would actually be.

Add it. Remember - dependency-chaining allows you to say "Only work when that other thing works." That's not useful?

My criteria for good software:

Does it work?
Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?

Comment on Re: RFC: Plake, a target-based file assembler

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: RFC: Plake, a target-based file assembler by arbingersys (Pilgrim) on Apr 03, 2008 at 18:34 UTC
The reason I wasn't sure is because Plake, used as a simple file assembler, is only assembling static sections. So there is no "working" in this sense, i.e. nothing really can fail. The sections just get stuck together. If Plake gets used in the "target-based programming" way then I can see that dependency-chaining would become more valuable. Really, it wouldn't be hard to add, outside of the problem that would arise when a target and a section share the same name. Thanks. A blog among millions.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: RFC: Plake, a target-based file assembler
by arbingersys (Pilgrim) on Apr 03, 2008 at 18:34 UTC

The reason I wasn't sure is because Plake, used as a simple file assembler, is only assembling static sections. So there is no "working" in this sense, i.e. nothing really can fail. The sections just get stuck together.

If Plake gets used in the "target-based programming" way then I can see that dependency-chaining would become more valuable.

Really, it wouldn't be hard to add, outside of the problem that would arise when a target and a section share the same name. Thanks.

A blog among millions.

[reply]