> As I understand it, > these are pre-1989 systems (or is it pre-1979?) Looks like there is quite many systems called that. Some of them are actually modern ones on top of native ibm system. To Howard Chu: was system exhibiting that broken `return' a native ibm one originating that long ago? Or more recent one on top of it? > Autoconf, Automake etc. has never been intended to support > retrocomputing. Was it? Already pointed out in the initial message on the topic, <84bqnjf3mp.fsf@xxxxxxxxx> of Tue, 07 Nov 2006 22:39:10 +0300, that it would mean completely different design. > After all, systems which default shell has no functions are > even more rare. Most likely in all systems where `return' works > properly shell also has functions. (Please tell me if you know > otherwise.) So restricting use of autoconf to systems with proper > `return' obviates vast majority of the uses of m4 in autoconf, and > very much of autoconf complexity. In other words, the approach as of <(autoconf) Portable Shell>, > do not take > advantage of features that were added after Unix version 7, circa 1977 is clearly retrocomputing. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
