I considered using named arguments, but one thing I like about make is the syntax when defining a rule.

Yeah, I do too. My initial mental ramblings had a syntax much closer to make's. I eventually decided that greater departure was called for, as I started thinking about the greater flexibility I wanted, and how ugly and shoehorn-ish it would be trying to cram it in without changing the syntax more significantly.

I figure enough things will differ from make anyway, for just the reasons I'm wanting to replace it in the first place, that trying to put the syntax too close would just make things harder. The user will have to move in a bit different direction anyway, so I might as well favor internal consistency over external. And named args make things more readable and easier; for instance, I'd just put describe as another named arg on task/file.

Actually, I may go do that. I don't have any description-ish stuff right now; have to think about how that fits in... thanks for the idea 8-}