Hi guys, I was simply creating a convenience function to output a lot of debugging info, temporarily. Thanks for the pointers, Justin On 3/12/11 12:51 AM, "Andres Perera" <andres.p@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >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. Or, 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. While >> 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
