On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 10:41:12PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: > According to Ralf Wildenhues on 3/7/2008 11:30 AM: > > | m4_init([cleanup]) and AS_INIT([cleanup]) must belong to the least > | intuitive interfaces that I've seen so far. Why something named init > | receives a cleanup argument rather than the name of or the thing that > | it initializes, will not be understandable to users, and any apparent > | analogy to AC_INIT or AT_INIT is just borked. > | > | I don't have a good idea how to improve this, but I must confess that I > | don't like it much. Maybe have a macro m4_init_wrap for this or so? > > In other words, guarantee FIFO behavior for m4_wrap (even with earlier M4 > versions) and add m4_init_wrap with LIFO behavior? Sounds better than > requiring registering the wrapup hook during initialization. I'll work > on that idea, and resubmit the series for review.
That sounds like an improvement > |> +AT_CHECK_AT_SYNTAX([Multiple AT@&[EMAIL PROTECTED], > |> +[[AT_INIT([suite, take one]) > | > | You need to double-quote comma inside AT_INIT's argument. > > Actually, I added a use of m4_expand inside AT_INIT so that I didn't have > to double-quote the comma. But as that was in a syntax failure test, I > guess I should use a comma in a different test expected to compile cleanly > if I intend to make that behavior the rule. Hmm. I remember to have seen a warning from AT_INIT about an extra argument. Cheers, Ralf
