Oh and FWIW, I've various other doubts and reservations about this
implementation so there's a good chance that it'll end up trashed (or at least
drastically revised) anyhow. If getting an actual definition and some testcases
of how macro scoping is supposed to work comes out of it, that alone would make
it well worth the trouble :smile:
The little language hygienist in me thinks non-global macros should be local to
the scope defined in, ie what's implemented in this PR, and communication
between macros should be options and arguments instead. There seems to be (from
this and past discussions) to be varying opinions about that though.
If the general consensus is that the existing scoping should be kept I guess I
can live with that, but then we need to define what %undefine does: does it
simply act on the local-most define, regardless of where in the local-global
axle that happens to be in? It's simple enough as a rule, but I find macros
undefining allegedly local macros from others somewhat ugly.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1409#issuecomment-715248421
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
