Re: "use strict" in autoscan.

[Pavel Roskin]

> 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.

I believe that you shouldn't bother.

I don't think the forthcoming specialized macros will be seriously
affected. If you want to check for perl without version there will be a
default value, probably "4" for the version. If you want additional
arguments you shouldn't use the generic macro.

So if you are not picky you will write AC_PROG_SPEC(gcc perl m4) but if
you are not happy with the defaults you will have to write

AC_PROG_C_STDC
AC_PROG_PERL(5.004)
AC_PROG_GNU_M4

or maybe even you could implement closures, something like
AC_PROG_SPEC([gcc perl(5.004) m4])

expanding to

AC_PROG_SPEC(gcc)()
AC_PROG_SPEC(perl)(5.004)
AC_PROG_SPEC(m4)()

and then expanding to whatever you want if that specific
AC_PROG_SPEC(perl) is explicitly defined, i.e. to AC_PROG_PERL(5.004). All
this is very sketchy, just to show you that m4 is not C++ :-)

AC_PROG_PERL is fine with me.

Regards,
Pavel Roskin