ericblake@xxxxxxxxxxx (Eric Blake) writes: > Wouldn't that be m4_wrap_lifo for autoconf 2.60, if we want > minimal code changes to the rest of autoconf? Yes, sorry, my typo. > Speaking of which, here is an idea towards a simpler > m4-2.0-proof definition of m4_wrap, with less overhead > per use of m4_wrap than my earlier patch (no ChangeLog > provided, as this is just an idea for now). That suggestion looks good to me (needs a documentation update for m4_wrap of course). I like that it clearly doesn't affect behavior unless m4 2.0 is used. I'd vote for this going into 2.60. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
