Eric Blake wrote: > According to Bruno Haible on 4/26/2008 7:18 AM: > | Status of 2): Not everyone agrees that this should be done, or at least an > | escape for old K&R C packages should be offered. > > We already have AC_PROG_CC_C89. Maybe we should offer AC_PROG_CC_KR which > allows a K&R C compiler (similar to the current AC_PROG_CC), and default > AC_PROG_CC to use AC_PROG_CC_C89 instead. Then packages will default to > requiring C89 unless explicitly requested otherwise.
I like this idea quite a bit. But I would prefer it to be named AC_PROG_CC_KNR instead. :-) Bob
