Hi, On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 03:25:38PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote: > Dan Manthey <dan_manthey@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Of course, if we decide that functions "are portable", we can skip the > > step of designing the hairy workaround. > > I think we can decide that for Autoconf version 3, but not for > Autoconf 2.60. I agree with this. I wouldn't waste time with the hairy workaround you mean. Autoconf 2.60 will have m4_defun'd AS_IF, which is a good step forward. The advantage of using AS_IF should be probably explained in the manual and in the NEWS file, but I excercise the excuse of not being a native speaker here. ;-) As far as my proposal to modify AC_REQUIRE to place the code near the beginning of the script (similarily to AS_REQUIRE), I think it's not worth it. Introducing this change would mean we would have to add many AC_REQUIREs to various macros which currently get out without it. The interaction of Automake and Autoconf might be a good source of this type of bugs. Autoconf 3 with functions will have a more elegant solution to the problem, without raising such problems. I think that "Autoconf with functions" will use the same configure.ac, which is very good for users. I also guess that great deal of the AC_DEFUNd macros will be the same, and that macros brought by aclocal will also work without modification. Thusly we could manage to place both alternatives to one tree, controlable by a command-line option to autoconf, or perhaps by a directive in configure.ac. The only change, which would come with Autoconf 3, would be that we make the "functions" option the default. Have a nice day, Stepan _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
