Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch

[Paul Eggert]

Akim Demaille <address@hidden> writes:

> I admit I understood your patch as the first step towards using shfn
> in Autoconf, but I'm wrong, sorry.  Nevertheless, it seems to me that
> this is an incorrect path to our ultimate goal: use shfn asap in
> Autoconf.

I don't see why the proposed change slows down the accomplishment of
that ultimate goal.  As far as I can tell, it neither helps that goal
nor hurts it.  If that's correct, then it can be judged on its own
merits according to its own goals.

> To this end, we need to measure the availability of shfn support,
> not the shfn support amongst LINENO supporting shells.

It won't suffice to try the few little tests that have been proposed
so far.  The only real test will be an extensive use of shell
functions.  So, I don't favor having a "spy" in Autoconf: I don't
think it will suffice (and also I don't like to wade through all the
useless chatter that such spies produce :-).  I'd prefer to have
Autotest use shell functions extensively, and have Autotest be the
guinea bug.