[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac |
Date: |
Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:05:54 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) |
* NightStrike wrote on Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:52:31PM CET:
> On 3/13/08, Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> wrote:
> > * NightStrike wrote on Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:35:47PM CET:
> > >
> > > Ok, now I understand. This is quite an interesting situation. I am
> > > guessing that this is why tools like autoscan or autoupdate will use
> > > actual case/if statements instead of the AS_CASE/IF macros.
> >
> > Where do they do that? autoscan and autoupdate mostly predate these
> > AS_CASE/IF features.
>
> For instance, when replacing a cygwin test with:
>
> case $host_os in
> *cygwin* ) CYGWIN=yes
> * ) CYGWIN=no;;
> esac
>
> instead of an AC_CASE equivalent.
Oh, ok.
> Autoscan in particular also always
> wants to put in a bug pile of macros listed in the manual as obsolete.
Please let this be productive and name them, so that can be fixed.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Ralf
- AS_CASE vs case/esac, NightStrike, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, NightStrike, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, NightStrike, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, NightStrike, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac,
Ralf Wildenhues <=
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, NightStrike, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, NightStrike, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/03/13