From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dexen deVries <dexen.devries@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Date: Fri,  5 Nov 2010 18:32:14 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-25+; KDE/4.5.1; i686; ; )
References: <773C7824-C50D-49EE-9CF8-74E91515F2F3@corpus-callosum.com>
	<201011051807.53647.dexen.devries@gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimeoGf+TdrTmWZFQMjHAcBtBbuj1cPjizH39=Ov@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimeoGf+TdrTmWZFQMjHAcBtBbuj1cPjizH39=Ov@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201011051832.14379.dexen.devries@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan9 development
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 780e71b0-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Friday 05 of November 2010 18:18:44 Nick LaForge wrote:
> > A honest question: what is the rationale for merging functionality of
> > make and shell into one?
>
> Use your imagination....

Tried, failed.
To me, make is a tool for generating an acyclic, directed graph of
dependencies  between build steps from some explicit and some wildcard rules
-- and then traversing it in a sensible order. How's that for daily use shell?


Perhaps something about `doing a reasonable action for every target file named
on the command line'?

--
dx