Guido Draheim wrote: > being a person who has been doing some tricky stuff with a generated > file called stdint.h, I would like to oject on generating a stdbool.h <<reasons elided>> I agree, with arguments about project focus and project bulk to boot: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/autoconf/2001-11/msg00033.html
> p.s. references are > http://ac-archive.sf.net/gstdint > http://ac-archive.sf.net/Miscellaneous/ac_create_prefix_config_h.html The downside to "gstdint" or "gstdbool" is that they are just the tip of an ugly iceberg. If you were to assemble one project for every fixable compatibility issue, you would find yourself with a lot of projects. In my code sourcery contest entry I proposed a single project that ran through the million known compatibility issues and installed whatever was needed so that a consistent interface was available for all supported platforms. This would mean that a "stdint.h" and a "stdbool.h" headers would be part of it and installed as needed. Then, instead of bulking up every autoconf-ed project in the world with 300K of duplicated configury overhead, a project can just have a dependency on a minimum revision of the compatibility library. Way, way, way simpler. Smaller distributions. "configure" could focus on the with/without/enabled/disabled options for each package. autoconf users would not need to be M4 quoting experts. I suppose I'm just whistling in the wind? ;-)
