Re: WMK dependencies

[Michael Attili <nospam@thanx>]

Matthias Bernhardt wrote:

> For my own part I prefer Makefiles anyway. But I'm currently
> missing a feature that allows to extract dependencies in a
> fashion like makedepend does. Makedepend itself is confused by
> the notation of the wml::std::xxx files and the #use statement,
> apart from that it is incapable of extracting the include
> directories out of the .wmlrc files.

I would second this suggestion. I have also found that the standard
UNIX make allows me to combine WML builds with other aspects
of build processing that I need, including automatically slicing graphics,
database maintenance, and XML manipulations. But, I have also
found it difficult to maintain correct dependencies for my .wml files.

> Since WMK already does all this interpretation, would it make
> sense to include a switch that lets wmk output the dependencies
> found rather than actually remaking the file?
> Would it make sense then to add parameters that allow to choose
> whether or not to care for "system files", as well in depend
> mode as in normal operation?
> Would it otherwise make sense to write an auxiliary program,
> called e.g. "wmakedepend" with the full functionality of
> makedepend combined with the understanding of wml?

Any of these suggestions would work for me.

    Mike Attili


______________________________________________________________________
Website META Language (WML)                www.engelschall.com/sw/wml/
Official Support Mailing List                   sw-wml@engelschall.com
Automated List Manager                       majordomo@engelschall.com