I should have proof read this before sending it: On 6 Jun 2010, at 20:19, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > It's a pity that m4sh hasn't caught on. I find it to be a very > pleasant and productive shell script development environment. I > don't know whether that's because the compilation phase is still > immature, or simply because it's buried so deep in the current > Autoconf/Libtool distributions that no one has noticed it? It > would be nice if we could find some means to fix that though.
Swapping the first two sentences makes it parse properly I think: "I find m4sh to be a very pleasant and productive shell script development environment. It's a pity that it hasn't caught on. I don't know whether that's because the compilation phase is still immature, or simply because it's buried so deeply in the current Autoconf/Libtool distributions that no one has noticed it? It would be nice if we could find some means to fix that though." Cheers, -- Gary V. Vaughan (g...@gnu.org)
