Paul Eggert wrote:
I think this idea is a blind alley. If we want to use modern shell
features, then we should go ahead and require the configure user to
have a modern shell. That's much simpler. We've already started down
that path with the LINENO changes.
Wouldn't this be solvable
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 08:18:13AM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
: Paul Eggert wrote:
: I think this idea is a blind alley. If we want to use modern shell
: features, then we should go ahead and require the configure user to
: have a modern shell. That's much simpler. We've already started down
Lars J. Aas wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 08:18:13AM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
: Paul Eggert wrote:
: I think this idea is a blind alley. If we want to use modern shell
: features, then we should go ahead and require the configure user to
: have a modern shell. That's much simpler.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 06:00:38PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
: Gary == Gary V Vaughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Gary As far as shell functions are concerned, it seems to me that
: Gary m4sh could provide shell function wrapper macros which expand to
: Gary a function/function call if that is
Gary == Gary V Vaughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gary As far as shell functions are concerned, it seems to me that
Gary m4sh could provide shell function wrapper macros which expand to
Gary a function/function call if that is supported by the shell, or
Gary else an inline function if not...
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 06:00:38PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
Gary == Gary V Vaughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gary As far as shell functions are concerned, it seems to me that
Gary m4sh could provide shell function wrapper macros which expand to
Gary a function/function call if that is
Paul == Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 04 Oct 2001 17:31:18
+0200
First let's find a portable LINENO, *then* move to another shell.
Paul But the attempt to find a portable LINENO is not cost-free.
Paul It is broken now, and it will take
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 10:56:04AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
People, the question is:
If we look for a reasonable shell and re-exec configure once
we found one, are you OK with keeping $LINENO used in
configure, even if the shell does not treat $LINENO
Hi, Akim!
People, the question is:
If we look for a reasonable shell and re-exec configure once
we found one, are you OK with keeping $LINENO used in
configure, even if the shell does not treat $LINENO specially?
*And*, keep in mind the decision involves M4sh too
From: Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 05 Oct 2001 10:56:04 +0200
So am I understanding that LINENO is a POSIX feature?
Yes.
The current implementation in CVS Autoconf might be broken, but
really, I fail to understand what makes you fear the LINENO stuff that
much. Why do you say
10 matches
Mail list logo
