Recursive #includes

[Dave Jones]

>From article <9736 at smoke.BRL.MIL>, by gwyn at smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ):
> In article <964 at philmds.UUCP> leo at philmds.UUCP (Leo de Wit) writes:
>>In article <9727 at smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn at brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>>|It's easy to get the Makefile correct; just declare that a header
>>|depends on the others that it #includes.
>>This is not correct, as it is never correct to declare make dependencies
>>between source files (this includes header files as well).
> 
> Sorry, but it IS technically correct.
>

Can three play this "'tis 'tain't" game?

Sorry, but it is technically INCORRECT.

I quote from the _make_ manual: "A dependancy specifies a set of
things that the given target depends on -- that is, do something
to construct the target if the things it depends on have been
updated since the last time the target was constructed."

Unquote.

The man-page says the same thing in different words.

By what rationale can the first .h be said to depend on the second?
How is _make_ to "do something to construct the target", if not check
it out of SCCS or RCS?  And if it does that, what has the second .h
got to do with the price of beans in Slobovia?

He's gotcha, Doug.  Say, "Uncle."