Ruslan Shevchenko writes:
| I generally favour "dnl" over "#", because "#" is not a comment
| delimiter in m4.
It is, it definitely *is*. In m4 there is a difference between
comments and text you get rid of which. Comments are introduced with
`#':
~ace % m4
Akim Demaille writes:
I'm sorry, but your argument makes no sense to me. I suppose it
also means I should not use the pattern /* in sh because it might
be a C comment? Or the converse?
The difference is that when I write "dnl some text" in an m4 file, it
is ignored as a comment no matter
On 19 Jul 2000, Akim Demaille wrote:
Most comments are to be kept in configure, but comments about M4
constructs. Experience demonstrates that people are dnling out
your experience perhaps, but so far you've declined to cite examples
sufficient to determine if it's an occasional problem or
"Peter" == Peter Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Akim Demaille writes:
I'm sorry, but your argument makes no sense to me. I suppose it
also means I should not use the pattern /* in sh because it might
be a C comment? Or the converse?
Peter The difference is that when I write "dnl some
Akim Demaille writes:
~ace % m4nostromo 15:18
define(`count', `I have $# arguments')
count(a, b, c)dnl Hm, you should be three...
I have 3 argumentsdnl Hm, you should be three...
count(a, b, c)# Hm, you should be three...
I
Akim Demaille writes:
dnl is still useful: it documents M4 constructs.
# is useful: it document Autoconf issues.
I see your point. I think we settle for a compromise and allow both
forms and explicitely mention both forms on the autoconf archive web
site. Then we can let the macro authors
"Peter" == Peter Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Akim Demaille writes:
dnl is still useful: it documents M4 constructs.
# is useful: it document Autoconf issues.
Peter I see your point. I think we settle for a compromise and allow
Peter both forms and explicitely mention both forms on the
--- Peter Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, using "dnl", the comments won't make it into the generated
configure script, but my guess is that hardly any user ever really
looks into the shell scripts. As long as the comments are contained in
the m4 source, this seems to suffice.
I
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Earnie Boyd writes
I just want to add that seeing the comments in the generated scripts is an
added benefit to the newbie trying to learn what's happening. It more clearly
shows how we get from foo.in to foo.sh and makes the process easier to
assimilate.
It can
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Peter Simons wrote:
True, using "dnl", the comments won't make it into the generated
configure script, but my guess is that hardly any user ever really
looks into the shell scripts. As long as the comments are contained in
the m4 source, this seems to suffice.
I read
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Earnie Boyd wrote:
--- Peter Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, using "dnl", the comments won't make it into the generated
configure script, but my guess is that hardly any user ever really
looks into the shell scripts. As long as the comments are contained in
11 matches
Mail list logo
