On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 11:31 PM Nikolaos Chatzikonstantinou
<nchatz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 10:11 PM Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 07:52:56AM -0400, Nikolaos Chatzikonstantinou wrote:
> > > >
> > > I fixed this with 0225f85. I got argument collection wrong twice, but
> > > the second time I was much further from the truth. At the time your
> > > example len((1, 2)) threw me off. I didn't realize I was just trimming
> > > whitespace too aggressively, and I wrote a bad patch for it that had
> > > special treatment of '(' when in argument collection. Your comment
> > > example with (( and )) also helped me discover that I had an
> > > "off-by-one" error in comment parsing (I had forgotten to include the
> > > final delimiter).
> >
> > There's still an issue with argument collection where you are
> > accidentally expanding a $@ that only exists as a result of whatever
> > gets substituted into $1 and so on (tested at commit 852a0f):
> >
> > $ m4
> > define(b,`.$1$2.')dnl
> > b($,1)
> > .$1.
> > b($,@)
> > .$@.
> > $ m4p
> > define(b,`.$1$2.')dnl
> > b($,1)
> > .$1.
> > b($,@)
> > .$,@.
>
> Good catch. The info manual mentions arguments like $10 to mean the
> 10th argument will be phased out of GNU m4. Should I still emulate
> that or should I keep the single-digit-only expansion?For now I went with multi digit expansions to keep the 1.4.20 behavior. Regards, Nikolaos Chatzikonstantinou
