[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: macro reuse
From: |
Keith MARSHALL |
Subject: |
Re: macro reuse |
Date: |
Tue, 23 May 2006 09:51:06 +0100 |
Ralf Wildenhues wrote, quoting me:
>>>
>>> That is not strictly true. It'd undocumented (and as such you
>>> shouldn't rely on it), but you can
>>> AC_REQUIRE([FOO], [FOO([arg])])
>>
>> ...
>>
>> This suggested usage isn't simply undocumented; it actually conflicts
>> with explicitly documented behaviour. Even if is is possible, (and
I've
>> no doubt that it is), do you really consider it wise to even suggest
it,
>> particularly since you also caution that it should not be relied on?
>
> I'm not suggesting it. The OP should definitely not use it. Sorry
> for mentioning it. I merely wanted to avoid somebody "finding that
> information" in the Autoconf source code, and using it. So I warned
> against it that it's not to be relied on.
Ah, sorry. I misunderstood your intention in mentioning it, (and so
others may have too). I read it as a suggestion that it was something
that might be considered as useful, albeit potentially risky.
> Enough warning signs now?
Yep.
> To be even more explicit: we would like that the users of Autoconf
> *only* rely on interfaces documented in autoconf.info.
No arguments on that; I agree 100%.
Regards,
Keith.
Re: macro reuse, Familie Porschberg, 2006/05/22
Re: macro reuse, Thomas Porschberg, 2006/05/24