Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Yavor Doganov wrote on Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 09:10:49PM CEST: > > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > AC_INIT([Pkg], [1.0], [bug], [pkg], [website]) > > > > > > Do you think that 'autoconf-2.63 -Wall -Werror' should have errored out > > > for the website argument? > > > > Of course it should not and it would not error out. 2.63 is history, > > so there's no way a hypothetical feature we're discussing now to be > > available there > > It was meant as an example of the kind of changes that can happen again > in the future, and that, had the excessive-argument-warning been > implemented in 2.63, would have caused an error with the above > invocation, thus an incompatible change.
Ah, sorry that I failed to understand it. Hypothetically speaking, if the feature [$SUBJECT] was available in that old Autoconf version, and the user was unwise enough to use `-Wall -Werror', than yes, she should get a syntax failure because that's what she requested for in the first place. I think this is sensible behavior -- using -Werror with Autoconf (and GCC, and ...) will always grant you "presents" like this one. Anyway, it was not my intention to argue, or confront in any way. I just thought that a feature like this could spare some developers' time (analyzing bugs in autoconf/m4 macros is sometimes time consuming, as the m4 manual says :-)). Let's move over if it's problematic enough to be ever considered.
