>>>>> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Akim> Are you saying you are looking for a 2.13 and 2.50 compatible
Akim> solution? Why?
Alexandre> Because we're not switching to CVS autoconf right now.
Akim> Can you see any other kind of additional pressure the GCC team
Akim> could put on us? I'm tired of all this.
I apologize, my answer is excessive.
Nevertheless I really meant that I'm tired of getting involved in
Autoconf. I'm tired of having to fight with its momentum.
I was planning to snapshot this week. I want to drop the aclocal
replacement from the next release, there are still many things to
discuss about it, and it will require quite a few protos before we can
really conclude we have a satisfying solution.
I was seeing 2.51 as the right moment to finish the vast clean up of
the compilers related issues. Your suggestion, which I first
considered as a quick hack but might be the right solution [1], IMHO,
should be addressed in 2.51, not 2.51.
As far as the 2.13 goes, I'll have to browse my English dictionary to
find words beyond exhausted, tired, etc. I do know you are facing
real needs, but I do believe asking something valid for both 2.50 and
2.13 is asking for too much.
I'm ready to help the GCC team to move to 2.50, I certainly am. But
asking for an interface which is backward compatible with an interface
which did not exist previously is painward compatibility, another form
of bugward compatibility.
I still think we should make the snapshot this weekend. Enough with
vast changes, it's time for testing.
Akim
[1] I just don't know, but since it involves an additional contract
with one of the interfaces which have already proved being too weak,
I'm not in favor of adding yet another layer of hacks, rather, we
should come with something clean, scalable, and for all the languages.
