Re: RFC: build: be robust to missing flex

[Akim Demaille]

hi Stefano!

Le 13 avr. 2012 à 10:16, Stefano Lattarini a écrit :

>> I confess I am a bit frustrated to define FLEX to yes/''
>> 
> I agree with you, and in fact I find that confusing.  I understand that it
> is done in order to be more consistent with what AC_PROG_CC and friends do,
> but here clarity should win over consistency IMHO.
> 
> So what about naming the variable as 'LEX_IS_FLEX' instead?  And then
> maybe, in follow-up patch (post-2.69), we could also introduce a similar
> naming for the variables set by AC_PROG_CC and friends (e.g., 'CC_IS_GCC'
> as an alias of what 'GCC' is currently defined to).  And then maybe, in a
> further follow-up (for autoconf 3.0 perehaps?), deprecate the use of the
> older variables (GCC and company).  How does this sound?

Sounds good to me.  Yet, I confess that I would much
prefer true/false (or maybe :/false) to yes/''.  WDYT?
It makes it easier to use from shell scripts, and allows
to make the difference between not-checked and false.