Hi Keith, * Keith MARSHALL wrote on Tue, May 23, 2006 at 10:16:20AM CEST: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote, quoting me: > > > > That is not strictly true. It'd undocumented (and as such you shouldn't > > rely on it), but you can > > AC_REQUIRE([FOO], [FOO([arg])]) > > Hmm. Autoconf 2.59 documentation *explicitly* states: > |- Macro: AC_REQUIRE (MACRO-NAME) > | If the M4 macro MACRO-NAME has not already been called, call it > | (without any arguments). Make sure to quote MACRO-NAME with > | square brackets. ... > This suggested usage isn't simply undocumented; it actually conflicts > with explicitly documented behaviour. Even if is is possible, (and I've > no doubt that it is), do you really consider it wise to even suggest it, > particularly since you also caution that it should not be relied on? I'm not suggesting it. The OP should definitely not use it. Sorry for mentioning it. I merely wanted to avoid somebody "finding that information" in the Autoconf source code, and using it. So I warned against it that it's not to be relied on. Enough warning signs now? To be even more explicit: we would like that the users of Autoconf *only* rely on interfaces documented in autoconf.info. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
