* Eric Blake wrote on Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 04:43:01AM CEST: > According to Sam Steingold on 9/11/2009 2:54 PM: > > however, this way I will be testing variables which have never been set. > > is this OK? > > (I understand that unless I set -u, shell will not barf, but I was > > wondering if that was considered bad style in aitoconf). > > Autoconf _expects_ to be run with set +u, and exploits uninitialized > variables. Even with set -u, the && should have short-circuit semantics, so you shouldn't ever test any variable which hasn't been set before, if you order the tests in the right way. > It would be a _lot_ of work to support set -u. Actually, I have used it from time to time for debugging purposes, but more for the libtool script. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
