Hi Olly,
I'd prefer to see separate tests for C++ features rather than lump it
all into AC_PROG_CXX. There are plenty of C++ feature test macros out
there, including those used in blitz++, mico, and my own macros in the
upcoming ACE with autoconf support.
> If I'm going to rewrite it (nobody's objected yet, so I guess I will),
> I can incorporate this knowledge. So far I think we have:
>
> * "CC" is an unwise choice for DOS/Windows (not a problem if we check
> that the compiler groks C++ so we can ignore this)
Right.
> * Prefer "aCC" to "CC" (appears to be safe everywhere)
Right.
> * "cl" could be a lisp compiler on Unix - perhaps only check for it on
> DOS and Windows
Why is this a problem? If it's a lisp compiler than it should
correctly fail. Isn't this okay?
> That all make sense? Any others?
So far so good. :)
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California at Irvine
1024D/F7A394A8 - 84ED AA0B 1203 99E4 1068 70E6 5EB7 5E71 F7A3 94A8
