"-inline" is bad!

[Bruce Adams]

Janice Caron Wrote:

> On 11/16/07, Sascha Katzner <sorry.no at spam.invalid> wrote:
> > when you change
> > such a file without rebuilding the file in which it was inlined the
> > changes will not be in the resulting executable.
> 
> Or put another way, when you modify a source file in any way
> whatsoever, regardless of compiler options, the wise thing to do is to
> recompile that file and all dependencies of that file.
> 
> That's what makefiles were for back in the bad old days, and what
> proper build utilities are for now.

The trouble with proper build utilities is that they are often too specific. This is why I an inevitably drawn back to make, even if I allow it to palm some of the work off onto other utilities. For example, will dsss build my doxygen documentation for me, run my integration tests (hopefully it does the unit tests) and format my coverage report the way I like it.  Nor would I expect it to. Make is horrible and should be replaced but none of the many general purpose replacements seem to have really taken off. Its a bit like democracy. Obviously flawed but there doesn't seem to be anything better.
Still it would be interesting to do a quick survey of what people are using for D as well for their non-D (heresy!) stuff.

Regards,

Bruce.