>>>>> "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pavel> Hello, Akim!
>> You may fall on some lonely hermit who decided plain old
>> functionless sh was enough for him, but then 1. he is certainly not
>> interested in your scripts, or 2. if he wants them, let him install
>> bash.
Pavel> One important point - bash used a configure script produced by
Pavel> Autoconf.
Definitely, that's the only reason why Autoconf must continue,
otherwise, there is just no point. It is ridiculous to spend 80% of
our time to adjust configure for 1% of machines. In this case
configure should just start by displaying.
Wow! My poor fellow! The state of your computer is
desperate. I'd suggest using a big ax, since this is known to
be excellent for computer scientist nerves.
Nevertheless, if you can't afford a new ax, rest assured: GNU
bash is for you, and shall bring some happiness in your dark
life.
Until then, me, configure, shall not assist you in your
depression: either get a cure by changing your computer, or by
changing the software you run. I won't caution such an
environment.
>> Nobody but Autoconf and Libtool maintainers should ever bother with
>> non POSIX shell portability issues. That's an absolute waste of
>> time for a totally uninteresting issue (Gosh, how I'd love not to
>> have the brain encumbered with references to *bugs*).
Pavel> Shell functions are unimplemented features, not bugs.
Right, I was also referring to the other `traditional' bugs. For
instance the "$@" expanding to "" when $# = 0 has been known for
years, and DU still has it. Today's scripts still have to deal with
this horror.
Pavel> If you ever looked at projects like Elix
Pavel> (http://sources.redhat.com/elix/) that specify multi-tier API's
Pavel> you should know the difference.
I'll look at it to try to understand your sentence :)
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
