On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 12:29:13PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >* Albert Chin wrote on Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 09:56:43PM CEST: > > > >>On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 10:40:01AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >> > >>>2) This looks somewhat ugly in the output, but to a certain extent, it > >>>is possible to emulate local variables with m4sh: see below. > >> > >>Way ugly. > > > >Yep. > > That doesn't matter. The output of gcc is ugly too! We should be > maintaining the source files (.m4sh), and anything that makes them > easier to read and edit is a good thing. > > >>Just seems to make libtool harder to maintain. > > Au contraire. Once any such mechanism has been debugged, it makes > libtool easier to maintain... as has been the case with several of the > refactorings I've done as we progress towards 2.0.
But debugging libtool occurs with the _generated_ "libtool" script. Making the output sane should help debugging, not hinder it. Is this so much of a problem that we need such a big hammer to solve it? I don't recall seeing enough PRs to consider it. -- albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
