Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago

Message-ID	<51ACB83B.9080903@verizon.net> (permalink)
Newsgroups	comp.std.c, comp.std.c++
From	James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Subject	Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago
Organization	Self
References	<UrKdnTRjb8pONQDMnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com> <5444b5db-2bba-4b3a-a3ae-522607837c5c@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <FYudnZUOv-jV2DXMnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Date	2013-06-04 10:41 -0600

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 06/01/2013 04:04 AM, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
...
> the program with, or source for the executable tool; and then you have
> to provide a customized makefile for the program that includes the
> appropriate rule, which presumes the use of a particular make utility
> since they're not standardized the way the language is.

Some make utilities are standardized; POSIX make, for instance. Of
course, that won't do you much good if your target platform doesn't
conform to POSIX, but it's not the absence of a standard that's the
problem; it's the fact that many systems haven't adopted it.


-- 
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try posting with your ]
[ newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-cpp-submit@vandevoorde.com ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]

Back to comp.std.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-05-23 19:18 -0600
  Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-05-24 15:19 -0700
  Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2013-05-25 02:23 -0700
  Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-05-25 02:24 -0700
    Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago "Kenneth \"Bessarion\" Boyd" <zaimoni@zaimoni.com> - 2013-05-25 23:43 -0700
    Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-05-25 23:44 -0700
      Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago Francis Glassborow <francis.glassborow@btinternet.com> - 2013-05-26 08:52 -0600
  Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@googlemail.com> - 2013-05-25 23:43 -0700
  Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago Peter <pcurran88@googlemail.com> - 2013-05-30 19:40 -0600
    Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-06-01 02:04 -0600
      Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago ootiib@hot.ee - 2013-06-01 14:53 -0600
      Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-06-04 10:41 -0600
        Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago espie@lain.home (Marc Espie) - 2013-06-05 23:12 -0700
          Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-06-06 09:20 -0700
  Re: A preprocessor feature we should have had 40 years ago Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2013-06-09 02:21 -0700

csiph-web