Eric Blake <ebb9@xxxxxxx> writes: > Is there any reason that > http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.59/index.html does > not link to an HTML version of the manual? Nobody bothered to generate one. I'll add it to my list of things to do for the next versoin. > I would like to see the following limitations documented in the > autoconf manual: These would be nice, yes. Can you please write up a patch along those lines and send to to autoconf-patches@xxxxxxx? Also, you'll need to sign papers for Autoconf. I assume you know the drill for that; if not, please let me know. > (Question - is it portable to do 'foo=bar export foo', or does the > assignment need to be a separate line from the export?) I'd use a separate line myself. > (Question - are there shells that support functions but do not support > compound-body besides {}? I wouldn't be surprised, not that I've run into one. > Question - do the GNU coding conventions, or at > least autoconf, have a recommended style for function syntax?) Not that I know of. I'd recomment {} for autoconf, though. > 10.9 - shift - (Question - is 'shift n' portable, or should it always be > written 'shift; shift'... n times?) I personally have run into old shells that did not support "shift n". It's been a while, though. > (Question - should autoconf be unaliasing everything as part of its shell > sanitization procedure? Or at least quoting simple command words to > ensure that aliases aren't being expanded?) I'm of two minds about this. Have you run into a problem with aliases here? If not, I'm inclined to let sleeping dogs lie. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
