[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FYI: AC_TRY_RUN
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: FYI: AC_TRY_RUN |
Date: |
07 Feb 2001 12:25:48 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Crater Lake) |
Alexandre Oliva <address@hidden> writes:
> On Feb 6, 2001, Akim Demaille <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > This fixes the 80 or 90 failures of the test suite due to the
> > inconsistent use of AC_TRY_COMMAND. I hate this code :(
>
> > I'm applying it because it does no harm, and is private.
>
> Hmm... I don't like AC_RUN_LOG. It reminds me of AC_TRY_RUN, that
> servers a totally different purpose. Unfortunately, I can't think of
> a better name that doesn't resemble AC_EVAL :-(
I agree very much. We have a clash between the will to say EVAL in an
Autoconf sense, and eval in sh. We are looking for a name that has a
Boolean flavor: it succeeds or fails. Maybe we should walk in Lars'
tracks.
AS_TRY_P
Bleah. The problem is we want to say something which precisely has no
name in Sh: just the act of running a command.