[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: m4_for bug?
From: |
Stepan Kasal |
Subject: |
Re: m4_for bug? |
Date: |
Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:14:53 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
Hello Ralf and Eric,
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:22:48PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> OTOH, I do think that an m4_for that has an empty 5th argument
> should not magically do the wrong thing, which really rules out
> that the comma following the optional STEP may be dropped.
> Let's remember that macros that depend on $# are mostly evil.
I think that this is how things currently stand for Autoconf:
the manual explains that passing an empty argument is equivalent to
not passing it at all (and usually leads to a default value).
IOW, the Autoconf manual pretends that $# does not exist, and
checking whether a certain positional argument is empty is all we
have.
This can be questioned, but I'm affraid it might be difficult to
change it.
Stepan Kasal
- Re: m4_for bug?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/11/01
- Re: m4_for bug?,
Stepan Kasal <=