-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 According to Eric Lemings on 4/10/2007 9:07 AM: >>> (Possibly the same as _AC_TYPE_CHECK_NEW without any >> includes at all.) >> >> Don't use undocumented autoconf internals (unless you are >> writing a patch >> for autoconf itself). The _AC namespace is reserved, and should not >> appear in your configure.ac. > > It wouldn't. I'm writing custom M4 macros that would appear in the > configure.ac and calls to the reserved _AC namespace would appear in > these custom macros. Nothing wrong with that right? :P There is indeed something wrong with it. What does it take to convince people that by using undocumented interfaces from reserved namespaces that they are setting themselves up for hard-to-debug failures in the future when the undocumented interface goes away or slightly changes in semantics, as is the right of the package maintainers by the very nature that they chose not to document it? If you really need the functionality, and a documented API doesn't provide it, then write a bug report against autoconf suggesting that a public API be provided that does the same thing, and the testsuite augmented to guarantee stability of the interface. The moral of the story is: _Don't use macros in the _AC* namespace if you are not writing a patch for Autoconf itself!!!_ - -- Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well! Eric Blake ebb9@xxxxxxx -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin) Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGG+M984KuGfSFAYARAhoBAKCRA/BCeQtfIm1bf43mzVyqtnB8+QCgzu4e la0CBF+8p4LhszdPSwiP75g= =9E0P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
