Re: divert()/m4_divert() broken in autoconf-2.64+

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 21 November 2009 17:46:19 Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Mike Frysinger on 11/21/2009 3:47 PM:
> > the autoconf documentation here is a far cry from anything you can point
> > at and say "this is a bug in your code".  all it says:
> >     it is nicer to associate a name with each diversion; the diversion
> > number associated with a particular diversion name is an implementation
> > detail, so you should only use diversion names
> 
> Documentation patches welcome.

as i said earlier, i dont really get this diversion stuff, nor do i know the 
actual limits that are in play here.  you seem to.

> > which is not the same as "you must never use numbers less than 300 or
> > your script will break".  especially because things have worked just fine
> > without any warnings, and even now there are no warnings.  just ugly
> > shell errors (and in some larger scripts, infinite loops of them).
> >
> > if there are reserved numerical regions, then autoconf really needs to
> > warn/error out here.
> 
> m4sugar patches welcome.  But I don't know how to write such a patch to
> make m4_divert warn the user they are shooting themselves in the foot,
> without also breaking m4_divert for autoconf's internal use.

other than going the normal route of introducing a variant that does no 
checking (like "_m4_divert"), i dont either
-mike

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.