[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: expand-before-require bug
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: expand-before-require bug |
Date: |
Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:18:14 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.9 |
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > - macros defined with AC_DEFUN_IDEMPOTENT are *known* to be expandable
> > any number of times, hence they may be both invoked and required,
> >
> > - macros defined with AC_DEFUN_ONCE are *known* to be expandable only
> > once, hence the recommendation for them is to AC_REQUIRE them,
>
> Do we have any of these? I'd just change AC_DEFUN_ONCE to the meaning
> you suggest for AC_DEFUN_IDEMPOTENT
It's too late for doing that: AC_DEFUN_ONCE was introduced on 2004-10-11.
Besides that, AC_DEFUN_ONCE and AC_DEFUN_IDEMPOTENT have really opposite
semantics. You cannot confuse people more than by using the same name for
two entities with opposite semantics.
Bruno
- Re: expand-before-require bug, Bruno Haible, 2009/01/22
- Re: expand-before-require bug, Bruno Haible, 2009/01/22
- Re: expand-before-require bug, Eric Blake, 2009/01/22
- Re: expand-before-require bug, Paolo Bonzini, 2009/01/23
- Re: expand-before-require bug,
Bruno Haible <=
- Re: expand-before-require bug, Paolo Bonzini, 2009/01/23
- Re: expand-before-require bug, Paolo Bonzini, 2009/01/23
- Re: expand-before-require bug, Eric Blake, 2009/01/23
- Re: expand-before-require bug, Bruno Haible, 2009/01/23
- Re: expand-before-require bug, Eric Blake, 2009/01/23
- Re: expand-before-require bug, Bruno Haible, 2009/01/23
- Re: expand-before-require bug, Eric Blake, 2009/01/25
- Re: expand-before-require bug, Paolo Bonzini, 2009/01/26
- Re: expand-before-require bug, Ralf Wildenhues, 2009/01/26
- Re: expand-before-require bug, Ralf Wildenhues, 2009/01/26