Hello, On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 09:56:27PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > > It seems to be pity that m4 standrdized for FIFO. > > Well, how about a patch to m4sugar that forces m4_wrap to always be LIFO, > and documents it as such, regardless of the underlying m4wrap even though I expressed my disappointment that FIFO was standardized, I do not think it is worth it to add this code. m4sugar was always meant as a proposal to ``improve'' or ``enhance'' m4, if I get it right. I do not think we should try push the world against the standard in this case, it probably is not that important. So I'm dismissing one possible motivation: to improve the world by fixing the broken standard. Another motivation would be purly utilitary: we might need a sane wrapper around m4 2.0, so that Autoconf works. But such a wrapper is not needed for Autoconf proper: the pattern m4_diversion_push() m4_wrap(m4_diversion_pop()) is actually wrong; it doesn't check for anything--if we check that the stack has emptied at the end, it's enough. (Remember that each pop checks that the stack is not empty.) What reminds? Perhaps some third party macros depend on LIFO m4_wrap. (Automake doesn't contain "m4_wrap", BTW.) Checking for that would require more work. Unless a reason is found, I would prefer to document that the order of m4_wrap execution is undefined. (I apologize if that was not clear from my previous mail.) Have a nice day, Stepan Kasal _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
