> m4_defun([a],[A]) > m4_defun([b],[m4_require([a])B]) > m4_defun([c],[a > b])
I still think that c should require both a and b, IOW all zero-argument macros should be designed so that they can be required, but that's a way more radical change. Maybe another warning, enabled only with a more specific option, would be a good idea. > is rather common (autoconf, automake, and gnulib all triggered it, and gnulib > in multiple places), but is also harmless (you can't get out-of-order > expansion > from an ac_require until you have _nested_ ac_require). So I reworked my > patch > to recognize this case and avoid treating it as a false positive, Both patches look like the correct approach; can you add a couple of lines to the documentation of the require mechanism in m4sugar.m4? Paolo
