-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 According to Paul Eggert on 8/23/2006 11:04 PM: > 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.
In my aardvark I opted to leave the normative text ambiguous, and just add a paragraph to the Application Usage that highlights the fact that the normative text is ambiguous. We'll see what the review process does with that, if the austin group decides to add text in the normative section as well. But hopefully the final resolution will be that GNU's behavior (popdef/pushdef) is compliant, as I agree it is better. - -- Life is short - so eat dessert first! Eric Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin) Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE7Zkc84KuGfSFAYARAkwKAJ4koOGYdUEZv6zMdTIz3p+wu4NRDACbBAs2 AZMHR8ld5V2zbTExebc6bog= =9Jw4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ M4-discuss mailing list M4-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/m4-discuss
