-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Akim,
Akim> So yes, we do depend upon non documented features of GNU m4,
Akim> but it is precisely because we know quite well our tool, and
Akim> know it is that single one which will be used.
I don't have a problem with depending on GNU m4... but I *do* have a
problem with depending on undocumented features.
First of all, undocumented features can't be relied upon... if it's
not documented, it might not exist in the next version.
And in the event that the maintainers disappear, the new maintainers
might have a hard time understanding all that `undocumented' code
(that is, the code in autoconf that depends on the undocumented
features in m4). I know this (all the current autoconf maintainers
disappearing) is unlikely... but it's not completely unheard of.
Now, what to do? Two things: Firstly, *explicit* documentation of all
the stuff in autoconf that depends on undocumented stuff in GNU m4,
and second, get the m4 maintainer(s) to document these undocumenteds.
None of which I can help with... >;-)
Bye, J
- --
Jürgen A. Erhard eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: (GERMANY) 0721 27326
My WebHome: http://members.tripod.com/Juergen_Erhard
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org)
"No matter how cynical I get, I can't keep up." -- Bruce Schneier
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Use Mailcrypt and GnuPG <http://www.gnupg.org/>
iEYEARECAAYFAjjY5NUACgkQN0B+CS56qs0ObgCfV9L29GebH1MZgv89Ria4xQ8N
kCUAn0wQIdtzGUHuxKb3Aic/vmCzWFUQ
=4lP9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
