On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 3:47 AM, Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@xxxxxx> wrote: > Hello Andres, > > * Andres Perera wrote on Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:42:04PM CET: >> why are you defining a function inside of a macro? > > Can't speak for Justin of course, but recent Autoconf itself defines > lots of functions inside macros. ÂOr, let's say, it causes shell > functions to be emitted "somewhere" in the configure script, to make it > smaller and more efficient than it could be without them. ÂWhile > maintaining the user API from before shell functions were used. > granted, the $as_required test specifies shell functions as exactly that yet if he's doing a static check, he does not need a function. not to mention that using the `function' builtin, which is specific to bash, ksh, and descendants, partly defeats one of autoconf's purposes beyond that, i'd also like to see exactly what he is trying to do since we are both speculating _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
