Hello Paul, On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 10:06:54AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > Something like that sounds fine, but I worry about > having m4_wrap behave differently from M4's m4wrap. > That's an unhealthy naming convention. I agree with you. That is why I propsed that we just document that it is not guaranteed whether m4_wrap is LIFO or FIFO. > Also, I worry that non-Autoconf uses of m4_wrap will break with the > new implementation, due to some obscure token-pasting or whatever > (sorry, I'm waving my hands here). Well, my concern was that non-Autoconf uses of m4_wrap could be broken by the FIFO behaviour. If we do not aim to fix that, we do not need any wrapper, we can just fix the m4_wrap usage in Autoconf. (patch to that effect will follow in a few days...) Have a nice day, Stepan _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
