On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 10:05:00PM -0400, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I think the conclusion from this thread is that it's not the checking
> of dependencies which is the problem. (Jeremy just added this to
> distutils.) It is the specification of which files are dependent on
> which others that is a pain. I think that with Jeremy's changes it
> would not be hard to add a rule to our setup.py that makes all
> extensions dependent on all .h files in the Include directory -- a
> reasonable approximation of the rule that the main Makefile uses.
I for one would love to have dependencies in my extension modules, I
usually end up deleting the build directory whenever I've changed a header
file :(
How about something like this:
Extension('foo', ['foo1.c', 'foo2.c'], dependencies={'foo1.c':
['bar.h'], 'foo2.c': ['bar.h', 'bar2.h']})
though there is the problem of backwards compatability :/
Just my two cents,
Martin
--
Martin Sjögren
martin@strakt.com ICQ : 41245059
Phone: +46 (0)31 7710870 Cell: +46 (0)739 169191
GPG key: http://www.strakt.com/~martin/gpg.html
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4