Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have been frightened by the number of problems we had with the > different AWKs and seds. I'm tired of the need to rewrite everything n > times, n being the number of .sh in Autoconf. Tim is fighting n times > with portability issues for DJGPP for things as simple as sed-based > basename, which is something coming for free with Perl. This may be a really bizarre, off-the-wall idea, but for at least some of that stuff, it's also used in autoconf scripts, right? So there are autoconf macros that generate some of the portable shell gunk that's also needed by the driver scripts, yes? Is there any way that the driver scripts could be generated using M4 so that all the portability junk can be hidden, just like autoconf lets the end user do for the configure script? -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf Paul Eggert
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf Russ Allbery
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf Akim Demaille
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf Paul Eggert
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf Guido Draheim
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf Akim Demaille
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf Russ Allbery
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf Akim Demaille
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf Alexandre Oliva
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf Akim Demaille
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf Alexandre Oliva
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf Akim Demaille
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf Gary V . Vaughan
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf Akim Demaille
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf Gary V . Vaughan