Hi Stepan, others,
This is a reply to
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2005-08/msg2.html
which starts at
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2005-07/msg00128.html
and
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2005-07/msg00032.html
* Stepan Kasal wrote
Hi Tommy,
* Tommy Nordgren wrote on Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 08:37:20PM CEST:
I am trying co set up an open source library based on the GNU
Autotools, so it will build a C++ version of the
library as well.
This sounds like a rather bad idea. Why do you want to do it?
You can call your C
Aug 2, 2005 kl. 10:30 AM skrev Ralf Wildenhues:
Hi Tommy,
* Tommy Nordgren wrote on Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 08:37:20PM CEST:
I am trying co set up an open source library based on the GNU
Autotools, so it will build a C++ version of the
library as well.
This sounds like a rather bad idea.
Stepan Kasal wrote:
You spoke about mixing different syntaxes. Well that's an important feature
of macro languages: literal text is intermixed with macro calls.
On one side, this simplicity is one of the most appealing properties of
macro languages.
OTOH, this means you inevitably get
