Just a couple of random thoughts: * Paul Eggert wrote on Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 12:36:06AM CEST: > Andreas Schwab <schwab@xxxxxxx> writes: > > Paul Eggert <eggert@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> Assuming you don't need recursion, here's a thought. I believe this is a decent assumption for the functionality both Autoconf and Libtool provide now. > >> Use "local", but > >> stick to the convention that all variable names are unique. On > >> systems that don't support "local", define a function named "local" > >> that warns if any of its arguments is a variable whose value is set; > > > > That would also (spuriously) warn if you call a function with local > > variables a second time, unless you explicitly unset the local variables > > before returning. > I guess the best we can do is define a function "local" that does nothing. We had the idea of emulating local variables (in the non-recursive setting) with m4: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2005-08/msg00068.html but it was admittedly seen as rather ugly-to-read for the end-user. (Begs the question how nice to read Autoconf output is now.. ;-) You can probably even have m4 (or a combination of m4 and testsuite shell scripts) check that your function call tree doesn't have any circles, and produce the output topologically sorted, just as the AC_REQUIRE machinery does now. Probably way overkill. Cheers, Ralf, who ducks and runs now _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
