On Saturday 21 November 2009 17:46:19 Eric Blake wrote: > According to Mike Frysinger on 11/21/2009 3:47 PM: > > the autoconf documentation here is a far cry from anything you can point > > at and say "this is a bug in your code". all it says: > > it is nicer to associate a name with each diversion; the diversion > > number associated with a particular diversion name is an implementation > > detail, so you should only use diversion names > > Documentation patches welcome.
as i said earlier, i dont really get this diversion stuff, nor do i know the actual limits that are in play here. you seem to. > > which is not the same as "you must never use numbers less than 300 or > > your script will break". especially because things have worked just fine > > without any warnings, and even now there are no warnings. just ugly > > shell errors (and in some larger scripts, infinite loops of them). > > > > if there are reserved numerical regions, then autoconf really needs to > > warn/error out here. > > m4sugar patches welcome. But I don't know how to write such a patch to > make m4_divert warn the user they are shooting themselves in the foot, > without also breaking m4_divert for autoconf's internal use. other than going the normal route of introducing a variant that does no checking (like "_m4_divert"), i dont either -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
