[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: m4_wrap behavior
From: |
Stepan Kasal |
Subject: |
Re: m4_wrap behavior |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Jun 2006 04:02:34 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
Hello Paul,
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 10:06:54AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Something like that sounds fine, but I worry about
> having m4_wrap behave differently from M4's m4wrap.
> That's an unhealthy naming convention.
I agree with you. That is why I propsed that we just document that
it is not guaranteed whether m4_wrap is LIFO or FIFO.
> Also, I worry that non-Autoconf uses of m4_wrap will break with the
> new implementation, due to some obscure token-pasting or whatever
> (sorry, I'm waving my hands here).
Well, my concern was that non-Autoconf uses of m4_wrap could be
broken by the FIFO behaviour. If we do not aim to fix that, we do
not need any wrapper, we can just fix the m4_wrap usage in Autoconf.
(patch to that effect will follow in a few days...)
Have a nice day,
Stepan
- m4_wrap behavior, Eric Blake, 2006/06/13
- Re: m4_wrap behavior, Paul Eggert, 2006/06/13
- Re: m4_wrap behavior, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/06/13
- Re: m4_wrap behavior, Stepan Kasal, 2006/06/13
- Re: m4_wrap behavior, Eric Blake, 2006/06/13
- Re: m4_wrap behavior, Stepan Kasal, 2006/06/14
- Re: m4_wrap behavior, Paul Eggert, 2006/06/15
- Re: m4_wrap behavior, Eric Blake, 2006/06/15
- Re: m4_wrap behavior, Stepan Kasal, 2006/06/15
- Re: m4_wrap behavior, Paul Eggert, 2006/06/15
- Re: m4_wrap behavior,
Stepan Kasal <=
- Re: m4_wrap behavior, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/06/14