On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 11:18:04AM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
: Pavel> Just take my advice. At least once a month take a random big
: Pavel> package by search on www.freshmeat.net (Lesstif, openssh,
: Pavel> gnome-libs, whatever) and try to run Autoconf. And then put
: Pavel> yourself in the posi
> "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pavel> Hello, Akim!
>> The one and only approach is the current one. Let's stop
>> reinventing the wheel.
Pavel> That's probably too stronly worded :-)
I agree, and I apologize.
>> But what's the point???
Pavel> The point is uniformi
Hello, Akim!
> The one and only approach is the current one. Let's stop reinventing
> the wheel.
That's probably too stronly worded :-)
> Pavel> Another question is the namespace. I agree that Autoconf
> Pavel> shouldn't be so greedy. One name per package should be the
> Pavel> right way. I.e.
> "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pavel> Why do we do it? Whe want to protect the user from
Pavel> overquoting. When I was suggesting to protect from underquoting
Pavel> nobody seemed to be enthusiastic about it although it is
Pavel> underquoting that results in truly weir
Hello!
I'm sorry that I couldn't participate in the discussion earlier, but I
hope it's still not too late.
The purpose of forbidden strings is to provide a certain class of names to
the user that are guaranteed to be expanded by autoconf.
Why do we do it? Whe want to protect the user from over
> "Earnie" == Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Earnie> But, neither of you answered my question. Why not use `_' to
Earnie> prefix A?_* names? You can then declare that the user is
Earnie> incorrect as _A?_* is a vendor variable! I as a user should
Earnie> be allowed to declare A?_
--- Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Alexandre> On Nov 6, 2000, Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Why not just prefix the reserved autoconf variables with a `_'
> >> character?
>
> Alexandre> autoconf used t
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> On Nov 6, 2000, Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why not just prefix the reserved autoconf variables with a `_'
>> character?
Alexandre> autoconf used to use just AC_/ac_. Now, it's claiming
Alexandre> ownershi
On Nov 6, 2000, Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not just prefix the reserved autoconf variables with a `_'
> character?
autoconf used to use just AC_/ac_. Now, it's claiming ownership of
all of A?_. That looks a little bit exagerated to me.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana',
--- Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, how about something like a special comment/macro stating what are
> the *words* that are allowed. Something like
>
> m4_accept_literals([AR_FLAGS], [lt_cv_AR_FLAGS])
>
> then autoconf.sh would just gather these guys, and say nothing about
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Akim Demaille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 10:58 AM
> To: Alexandre Oliva
> Cc: Pavel Roskin; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Forbidden strings
>
>
> >>>>> "
> "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pavel> Autoconf could also check configure with "sh -n" - it may be
Pavel> more effective than scanning for macros, although some
Pavel> constructs will not be caught.
No really, `sh -n' is way too weak, it can only catch very obvious
mis
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'd rather take almost the full range and except AR if we need to.
Alexandre> I'd prefer that the maintainers of autoconf weren't so
Alexandre> greedy about prefixes :-)
In fact my position (let's take the full range) is also b
On Nov 3, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> What should we do?
Pavel> Return to A[CHMSTU]
Agreed.
> I'd rather take almost the full range and except AR if we need to.
I'd prefer that the maintainers of autoconf weren't so greedy about
prefixes :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjo
Hello!
I'm removing [EMAIL PROTECTED] from Cc: - they are just victims of our
experiments with Autoconf.
> > Can't you use ASFLAGS? You don't see C_FLAGS and CPP_FLAGS, etc.
>
> Just one thing: I can pretty simply chaneg to ASFLAGS... after convincing
> all my users/customers they also have to
> -Original Message-
> From: Lars J. Aas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 6:58 PM
> To: Bernard Dautrevaux
> Cc: 'Akim Demaille'; Pavel Roskin; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Forbidden strings
>
>
&g
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 06:39:02PM +0100, Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
: So the obvious:
:
: what is Autoshell?
Autoconf macros for partable shell scripting.
: Note that my question was due to the fact that i *do* use AS_FLAGS for
Can't you use ASFLAGS? You don't see C_FLAGS and CPP_FLAGS,
> -Original Message-
> From: Akim Demaille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 6:36 PM
> To: Bernard Dautrevaux
> Cc: Pavel Roskin; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Forbidden strings
>
>
> >>>>>
> "Bernard" == Bernard Dautrevaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bernard> Whar is AS_xxx used for in autoconf?
Autoshell, see m4sh.m4.
> -Original Message-
> From: Akim Demaille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 4:55 PM
> To: Pavel Roskin
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Forbidden strings
>
>
> >>>>> "Pavel" ==
> "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pavel> Hello, Akim!
>> In Autoconf, the words which include _A?_, A?_, _m4_, m4_ are
>> forbidden, in order to diagnose unexpanded macros. There is
>> (currently) no escape to this rule.
Pavel> Not _m4_.
Then we should, shouldn't we? N
Hello, Akim!
> In Autoconf, the words which include _A?_, A?_, _m4_, m4_ are
> forbidden, in order to diagnose unexpanded macros. There is
> (currently) no escape to this rule.
Not _m4_.
> ~/src/libtool % ace nostromo 15:58
> configure:5870: error:
22 matches
Mail list logo
