Hi Eric, First, thanks a lot for your efficiency work on Autoconf!
* Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:10:45PM CEST: > I intentionally > documented m4_set output as unspecified order, to allow a future change > where the elements are maintained in sorted order rather than entry order, > by making set manipulation an m4 2.0 module. Does that mean that the Autoconf output will depend also on the M4 version used, and possibly even system-specifics like type sizes or so? That would be a major pain for developers checking in configure scripts to their repositories, and breaking a (possibly unspoken) Autoconf promise. Also, it's a bit sad to see that neither of us has fixed any of the open regressions. As I would really like to see a stable next release, I'm even wondering a bit whether we should consider releasing it without all these new changes, to avoid the risk of introducing new regressions. I for one would be less concerned if they had some more time in the git tree before being in a stable release. But I certainly would like to hear your judgement about this (I unfortunately haven't had the time yet to read them carefully). Cheers, Ralf
