Not that I ever expect to use the Fortan stuff, but... On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 12:28:05PM -0500, Steven G. Johnson wrote: > AC_PROG_FXX([year], [search-list]), where year is YY or YYYY with YY < 54 > interpreted as 20YY
That "YY < some_magic_value interpreted as 20YY" was an acceptable kludge for Y2K-proofing legacy systems. But what reason is there for incorporating two-digit dates into new designs, now that we've seen the grief that can cause? I know, I know. "Surely nobody'll still be using Autoconf in 52 years." That's what they said the last time... Just require a four-digit date and be done with it. > -- FXX seems a clear name for a Fortran compiler from an arbitrary > year. > -- FXX also draws a parallel with C++ (CXX). True. But what if someone comes up with a Fortran++? > [FXX] works as a prefix for FLAGS, etcetera, unlike FC which doesn't > (FCFLAGS would break the analogy with CC/CFLAGS). Using whole names whenever possible has the advantage that it doesn't take up more room in the single-character-prefix namespace. Indeed, the manual for GNU make recommends: > Append `FLAGS' to the program-name variable name to get the > options variable name--for example, `BISONFLAGS'. But that doesn't offer any guidance as to what the program-name variable itself should be called. The manual goes on: > (The names `CFLAGS' for the C compiler, `YFLAGS' for yacc, and > `LFLAGS' for lex, are exceptions to this rule, but we keep them > because they are standard.) So CC/CFLAGS is perhaps not the most important pattern to stay compatible with. (To be honest, I don't really feel that strongly about FXX vs. FC; really, my points are minor quibbles. That YY thing, though -- yikes!) -- | | /\ |-_|/ > Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | / The acronym for "the powers that be" differs by only one letter from that for "the pointy-haired boss".
