Re: "use strict" in autoscan.

[akim]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 05:54:37PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Tim Van Holder wrote:
> 
> > > Fine with me.  Please, don't hesitate requiring some recent version of
> > > Perl in autoscan.  And I believe Jim has macros to require some
> > > specific version of perl which might replace the poor
> > > AC_PATH_PROG(PERL) we have in Autoconf's configure.in.
> > Wouldn't that macro be eligible for inclusion in autoconf itself? Or is
> > it too specific?
> 
> I think it's eligible. Unlike C, Perl has no non-free implementation. The
> version defines Perl quite well.
> 
> Given that, it's not unreasonable to ask the users to upgrade Perl if it's
> too old. Testing Perl for features would be an overkill.
> 
> The world of Perl is better than the world of C, so Autoconf shouldn't
> apply its purist approach to Perl. Especially since it's doesn't apply it
> to itself :-)

Agreed!  Let's swallow this macro.  But then, what name? I'm not really
happy with AC_PROG_PERL because the signature is not uniform.  But maybe
I shouldn't bother.