>>>>> "dv" == Didier Verna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
dv> Tom Tromey wrote:
>> Is an AC_BEFORE violation really just a warning?
dv> yes.
>> I think it is an error.
dv> That's what Akim and I fight about all day long. Akim sees
dv> it as a `convenience' and doesn't think something more severe is
dv> needed. I think that it should be an error, because I haven't seen
dv> a case where an AC_BEFORE warning is issued, and the user keeps
dv> the reverse ordering on purpose. If I'm proven wrong, I still
dv> think we should have something like AC_BEFORE_FATAL.
Hm, we do debate about various things related to this, but I certainly
do agree it should be an error. Nevertheless, currently it is not
because Autoconf itself has somewhere a circular dependency.
In addition, that would be a real incompatible change, since I know
there are such broken scripts outside. BUt I would certainly not mind
`breaking' what's broken. Still, first we need to clean Autoconf wrt
this. ISTR it's something between AC_AIX and AC_PROG_CC and
AC_PROG_CPP, I don't recall well.
