Hello Bruno, * Bruno Haible wrote on Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 11:24:19PM CEST: > If I can't convince you, then I would propose to be silent about this > question in the GNU standards for the moment,
This is not an option IMVHO, because it has the very distinct disadvantage that you cannot build packages together with the same configure options when one package accepts + and another barfs. You just lost that one big positive feature that a detailed configure API in GCS can bring you: consistency, stackability. And since not all configure scripts in the world are written by autoconf, it is not an option to just hide this new feature in Autoconf either. I don't disagree to adding the +, but to be honest, I don't think your argumentation is sound: you should be addressing the question why destroying compatibility is acceptable in this case, rather than why the new feature is desirable. The latter is fairly obvious, but the former might be a burden that others might have to carry. Thanks, Ralf
