Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Should dependency-name be a package or a desired feature, which the
> suggested package(s) support?
A feature, obviously. But I don't see the need for dependency-name in
the first place. I think it won't work in practice -- actual
dependencies are too messy and too informal.
>> I think Paul's idea was to haves
>> AC_MSG_NOTICE (@var{message}, @ovar{priority})
>> if the second argument is omited, the message is displayed immediately.
>> Otherwise, the message is saved for the end.
>
> I think that is harder to understand, and this would be clearer when
> reading. For example, when hacking the texi it was pretty clear
> what the @code{}, @file{} etc things did.
If you're going to have new names only, you should put the priority
as the first arg, since it's shorter.
As long as we're being more general, perhaps the general facility should
be something like this:
AC_ATEXIT(priority, action)
That will let you do whatever you like at the end, including futz with
the exit status I suppose. Then we wouldn't need AC_MSG_END.
Also -- a small point -- priorities should all be positive. (This
allows for future extension.)
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
