>> 1) that this requires a contract between the macros: if the definition >> uses m4_provide([$0($@)]), the caller should use m4_require_with_args; >> otherwise, it should use m4_require. > > Perhaps we could redefine m4_require to always supply () (equivalent to 1 > empty argument) ... And m4_defun to always do m4_provide([$0($@)]). > then require that any m4_defun'd macro behave the same > with no arguments as it does with one empty argument. Do you think this is sensible? (I don't have enough experience to judge). > Would that allow the caller could get away with either style of require? Yes, I think so. Paolo _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
