On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:10:49PM +0200, Sébastien Hinderer wrote: > Many thanks for your openness. Well beyond the particular semantics we > are trying to achieve, I think one reason for being more permissive > about the syntax of arguments would be to help people in situation > similar to mine maintaining backwards compatibility. Indeed, even in the > cases where the arguments have been poorly named, I think it would help > to be able to still use them and then deprecate them slowly, rather than > being forced to change them brutally. I don't think there is much to gain by being more permissive. I doubt there are many configure scripts like yours that people want to rewrite with autoconf. I'd suggest only allowing different kinds of arguments if this would actually allow a better interface - otherwise, it's allowing worse interfaces, which wouldn't ever be deprecated in practice. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
