hi Stefano! Le 13 avr. 2012 à 10:16, Stefano Lattarini a écrit :
>> I confess I am a bit frustrated to define FLEX to yes/'' >> > I agree with you, and in fact I find that confusing. I understand that it > is done in order to be more consistent with what AC_PROG_CC and friends do, > but here clarity should win over consistency IMHO. > > So what about naming the variable as 'LEX_IS_FLEX' instead? And then > maybe, in follow-up patch (post-2.69), we could also introduce a similar > naming for the variables set by AC_PROG_CC and friends (e.g., 'CC_IS_GCC' > as an alias of what 'GCC' is currently defined to). And then maybe, in a > further follow-up (for autoconf 3.0 perehaps?), deprecate the use of the > older variables (GCC and company). How does this sound? Sounds good to me. Yet, I confess that I would much prefer true/false (or maybe :/false) to yes/''. WDYT? It makes it easier to use from shell scripts, and allows to make the difference between not-checked and false.
