Den 30 maj 2015 10:23 skrev "Charles Forsyth" <charles.fors...@gmail.com>: > > > On 30 May 2015 at 08:21, Jens Staal <staal1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> am also interested in seeing how compatible the ported m4 is with GNU m4 if there are good tests > > > GNU m4 is insane, and completely missed the point about GPM (and thus m4). > > My m4 port is based on Ritchie's m4, although I might re-do a few things to make it a Plan 9 program > and account for a few changes in the C environment. You could put gnu m4 in APE I suppose, but > since it's mainly used for autotools which won't work anyway because they aren't portable, I'm not sure what's the point.
I was talking about "quasar m4" in ports https://bitbucket.org/mveety/9front-ports/src/devel/m4/ Which apparently is a modified BSD m4 specifically aiming for GNU compatibility. I am not saying that they are the ideal or good tools - just that most 3rd party source expect certain behavior and a "compatibility environment" (like APE) has as first priority to deal with 3rd party stuff. Enabling as much as possible without judgement is at least to me desirable. All the ports are optional so nobody needs to feel "violated" by my heresy ;)
