Ralf Wildenhues wrote, quoting me: >> Why would anyone want to do so anyway? If I want to write a shell >> script, other than as a configure script, it's *much* more logical >> and convenient for me to just write directly as such, in the shell's >> own native language. > > Those who don't use M4SH_INIT are doomed to reinvent it, painfully. Oh yeah? And M4SH_INIT is sooooo well documented, that everyone will rush to use it! Granted, these considerations will extend beyond autoconf, into the other autotools, but the point I was trying to make is that, for everyday shell scripting needs, using m4 to generate the script is just more trouble than it's worth. Consider the pdfroff script in groff: http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/groff/groff/contrib/pdfmark/pdfroff.sh?rev=1.7&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup That was written from scratch, with nary a sniff of m4, and it runs portably, on a wide variety of platforms. Regards, Keith. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
