Re: no-c++

[Bruno Haible]

Sam Steingold wrote in
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2009-08/msg00112.html>:
> my suggestion eliminates two expensive steps:
> 
> now:
> 
> import the non-C++ module
> regenerate all autoconf files
> try to compile with c++, fail
> import no-c++
> regenerate all autoconf files
> add NO_CXX to gnulib CFLAGS
> 
> with my suggestion:
> 
> import the non-C++ module; no-c++ is automatically included
> regenerate all autoconf files
> try to compile with c++, fail
> add NO_CXX to gnulib CFLAGS

Should the 'regex' module (and possibly other modules which require C
syntax) depend on the 'no-c++' module? We can open a poll on it.

  - If it has this dependency, the configure of all packages that
    use 'regex' (coreutils, sed, tar, etc.) will execute gt_NO_CXX,
    although only few packages (clisp, gettext, maybe an other one)
    are compilable with a C++ compiler.

  - If it does not have this dependency, people have to use gt_NO_CXX
    explicitly when they want their package to be compilable with a C++
    compiler.

Your all votes? Pro? Contra?

> require digging around - it is not obvious that no-c++ module exists
> and does what you want. 

You are welcome to submit a piece of documentation for gnulib/doc/*.texi.

Bruno