Re: AC_DEFINE-descriptions with 2.14*

[Thomas E. Dickey]

On 17 Jul 2000, Akim Demaille wrote:

> : I missed this thread: what is your counter-example?
> 
> I know what you are going to say: we don't need autoheader, we should
> just spit a cleaned up version of confdefs.h, as your patch does.  But
> I don't share this opinion, so yes, it is important to run autoheader.
> 
> But then, just imagine
> 
> AC_DEFINE(FOO$$)

so?  (it's not a reasonable shell expression - his example is both
reasonable and in use now).
 
> and you'll see what I mean.  We need something predictable,
> terminating, and M4 computable: literals.

if it doesn't work, no one will use it.

-- 
T.E.Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://dickey.his.com
ftp://dickey.his.com