Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hmm, that's not quite what we thought earlier: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/m4-patches/2003-06/msg00035.html
Certainly the spec could be read the other way, as Tim Van Holder does. But I don't agree that his reading is the only one. It's just as natural to parse the spec as saying that the distinction between 'define' and 'pushdef' is that the former does not preserve the current definition, whereas the latter does. When attempting to resolve ambiguities like this, one thing to consider is what implementations do; and we have genuine disagreement here among implementations. One plausible fix is to change the spec to say that choice of behavior is implementation-specified. Another possibility is to change POSIX to clearly require the GNU behavior (since it's better :-), but you'd have to make a strong case for why users would prefer that. _______________________________________________ M4-discuss mailing list M4-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/m4-discuss
