> No warning that, since the aim was to move away from the old semantics > to the new semantics, using `-' gets the user stuck with the old > semantics which means he will put stones in the way of the intended > move? I think we need a better warning in the manual that [-] is not something to be applied to indiscriminately suppress the warning. But it will have to be supported in the future. I didn't understand really what was Jeff's usecase. > I think a decent documentation should at least caution this as a > last resort, and in conjunction with the warning, the normal use of the > fourth argument should be suggested first. Exactly. > I take it that this is a decision to be stuck with the preprocessor test > forever? How about the idea of using a special argument to denote "try > a compile test, but if it fails, then don't output that horrendous > warning"? That would be [AC_INCLUDES_DEFAULT]. But I think that suggesting AC_INCLUDES_DEFAULT for people that really want a compile test is not good. What about leaving the warning and double test for a few more years, but changing it to continue with the compiler result? Paolo _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
