Tom Tromey writes:
> Alex, did you file the papers with the FSF? I don't recall seeing a
> message from them. The patches can't go in until the paperwork
> clears. If you did this in the past and I forgot, please accept my
> apologies.
>
I've sent them in... but I've not heard anything back (they went to
the address in assign.future whilst RMS was away). I can resend them
if necessary.
> Ideally the patch would have documentation changes (we've historically
> been very bad about this -- at least the patsubst change needs
> documenting) and some test cases.
>
> Parts of the patch don't follow the coding style. Eg there are spaces
> after parens instead of before them in some situations.
I can fix that up.
> I don't mind the "make -q" thing, but adding a new .am file to
> parallel many existing ones seems bad. Couldn't we do this by having
> conditional text in the .am files? That is how we handle other
> situations.
>
I think its sufficiently different, I did try mangling one file for
both situations, but it made it hard to read (almost all the text
becomes conditional).
Alex.
