Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rutgers!modus!gear!cadlab!martelli
From: martelli@cadlab.sublink.ORG (Alex Martelli)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: A question on C programming style
Message-ID: <792@cadlab.sublink.ORG>
Date: 26 Apr 91 09:29:59 GMT
References: <1991Apr13.013911.18151@athena.mit.edu> <KERS.91Apr15093213@cdollin.hpl.hp.com> <1991Apr16.002821.19233@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: CAD.LAB, Bologna, Italia
Lines: 26

scs@hstbme.mit.edu (Steve Summit) writes:
	...
:I gather that the "touch" trick is fairly widely used, so I
:suppose it must work, but I can't say if it has any real
:practical drawbacks (other than losing the "real" modification
:time, and the philosophical objections).

Well, this trick (the "foo.h: bar.h; touch foo.h" approach to
nested include handling in makefiles) surely has the potential
of causing a lot of extra work.  Makefiles are not just for
recompiling and linking sources; lots more things can depend 
on a text file than just a .o... the extra touching, depending
on what you do in your makefiles, may cause redundant attempts
at RCS check-ins of sources, redundant printouts of unmodified
sources, redundant backups to slow media, redundant broadcast
of sources over a net, redundant updating of tarfiles, etc etc.
I also share your dislike for having the last-modified date lose
information value in a long-listing.
Despite all this, it's just *so* convenient that I find myself
using it from time to time, mostly for makefiles intended for
short-term use...
-- 
Alex Martelli - CAD.LAB s.p.a., v. Stalingrado 53, Bologna, Italia
Email: (work:) martelli@cadlab.sublink.org, (home:) alex@am.sublink.org
Phone: (work:) ++39 (51) 371099, (home:) ++39 (51) 250434; 
Fax: ++39 (51) 366964 (work only), Fidonet: 332/401.3 (home only).