Hello Vincent, thanks for the report. * Vincent Torri wrote on Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 05:51:21PM CET: > more precisely, if foo.h exists and bar.h does not: > > 1) with: > > AC_CHECK_HEADERS([foo.h bar.h], [have_headers="yes"], [have_headers="no"]) > > have_headers value is "no" > > 2) with: > > have_headers="no" > AC_CHECK_HEADERS([foo.h bar.h], [have_headers="yes"]) > > have_headers value is "yes" > > which is quite annoying, in my humble opinion Yes. Please consider the situation where one is looking for the header of one particular API, but that API may be declared in one of several _alternate_ headers, foo.h or bar.h. In that case, the current semantics are useful. It seems that with the current implementation, the semantics you would like are easily emulated, and AFAICS the current documentation matches the current semantics, too. Consequently, I don't think this needs a change in Autoconf. Aside, a change in behavior of this prominent macro would be a sure way to destroy backward compatibility. So if this were seen as broken, it would need a new macro with better semantics, plus deprecation of this one. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
