IEEE Standards Interpretations for IEEE Std 1003.2™-1992 IEEE Standard for Information Technology--Portable Operating System Interfaces (POSIX®)--Part 2: Shell and Utilities
Copyright © 1996 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. 3 Park Avenue New York, New York 10016-5997 USA All Rights Reserved.
Interpretations are issued to explain and clarify the intent of a standard and do not constitute an alteration to the original standard. In addition, interpretations are not intended to supply consulting information. Permission is hereby granted to download and print one copy of this document. Individuals seeking permission to reproduce and/or distribute this document in its entirety or portions of this document must contact the IEEE Standards Department for the appropriate license. Use of the information contained in this document is at your own risk.
IEEE Standards Department, Copyrights and Permissions, 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, New Jersey 08855-1331, USA
Interpretation Request #113
Topic: $< macro evaluation Relevant Clauses: 184.108.40.206
Subclause 220.127.116.11 states, lines 607-610: In an inference rule, the $< macro shall evaluate to the file name whose existence allowed the inference rule to be chosen for the target. In the .DEFAULT rule, the $< macro shall evaluate to the current target name. The $< macro shall be evaluated only for inference rules. What does it mean to "be evaluated only for inference rules" ? There seems to be a contradiction since the 2nd last sentence describes the behaviour for the .DEFAULT rule, but .DEFAULT is not an inference rule. How should one interpret this apparent contradiction? What happens to $< in rules that are not inference or .DEFAULT? Should $< remain a literal string (e.g "$<" ) or should it be treated as an empty string "" (as is done in some historical makes) or are alternate implementation defined behaviours allowed (e.g some non-USL based makes, such as from MKS and GNU, substitutes $< to be the list of all the prerequisites) Thank you for your attention to this matter.
As has been pointed out, the standard contains a contradiction for the $< macro and no conformance distinction can be made between alternative implementations based on this. This is being referred to the sponsor.
Rationale for Interpretation