Re: 16-ac-lang-preproc-require.patch

[Akim Demaille]

>>>>> "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin <address@hidden> writes:

Pavel> Hello, Akim!
>> | I'm not sure that we really want to go ahead after that
>> warning. Howvalid | "configure" will be if we ignore it?
>> 
>> Maybe I didn't think enough about this issue, but since I have no
>> experience of Fortran...
>> 
>> BTW, this weekend I had a stupid idea: how about introducing
>> `Preprocessed Fortran 77' as a language, which has ac_ext=.F?

Pavel> Please don't do it. I would prefer to accept the ideas only
Pavel> from the people who have any real experience in this area.

They already all point out we need one.  But OK, let's not go that
road now, it was a stupid idea.

Pavel> By the way, I believe that Autoconf/Automake/Libtool should
Pavel> move in the direction of creating wrappers around tools. The
Pavel> wrappers for every tool could implement many functions,
Pavel> including dependency tracking, option conversion, workarounds
Pavel> for bugs, deansification and (for Fortran) providing
Pavel> preprocessor for the compilers that don't have it.

Yes, of course.  It's been at least two years from now we want to use
something like shtool or an all mighty missing.  Now that M4sh is
coming up, we might even handle this with our own technology.

Pavel> But it's all the distant future. For now I would stick only
Pavel> with highly demanded changes.

I agree for ``distant'' in the sense that we can wait for 2.52 or 53,
but 2.51 is too early.



About my patch: I'm applying it as is, i.e., with the m4_warn, but we
keep this thread alive and decide what to do.