On 9/6/2012 2:53 PM, Michael Haberler wrote: > A different issue with autoconf is that writing working feature test macros > is outright pathetic, and IMO the folks who came up with the idea of using m4 > for this purpose should be summarily shot. But then this isnt all that > frequent so one can suffer through that. You had to be there :-)
Macro processing languages were a big research area back in the 1960s and early 1970s. I remember when Mooers' TRAC, Strachey's GPM, and string processing languages like SNOBOL were my playthings. That period of my life came to a close when I discovered potential employers were more interested in the more mundane skills I might possess :-) That the Unix gods---Kernighan and Ritchie---developed m4 earned it a special place on the altar of computer science. Who could be against using a Turing-complete language for writing macros? I have nothing technical to offer to this build-system discussion but I do have a request...that whatever is proposed for LinuxCNC3 is first tested and demonstrated with some known-to-be particularly hairy part of the existing LinuxCNC2 build. I know this is a pain to orchestrate but without some relevant information about what the candidate will do for us I don't see the sense in betting the farm on it. Regards, Kent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
