Hello Paul,
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 10:06:54AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Something like that sounds fine, but I worry about
> having m4_wrap behave differently from M4's m4wrap.
> That's an unhealthy naming convention.
I agree with you. That is why I propsed that we just document that
it is not guaranteed whether m4_wrap is LIFO or FIFO.
> Also, I worry that non-Autoconf uses of m4_wrap will break with the
> new implementation, due to some obscure token-pasting or whatever
> (sorry, I'm waving my hands here).
Well, my concern was that non-Autoconf uses of m4_wrap could be
broken by the FIFO behaviour. If we do not aim to fix that, we do
not need any wrapper, we can just fix the m4_wrap usage in Autoconf.
(patch to that effect will follow in a few days...)
Have a nice day,
Stepan
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
