[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FYI: function definitions
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: FYI: function definitions |
Date: |
Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:20:41 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 12:49:29PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> > I just realized that, if I first need Autoconf to have a macro that
> > guarantees to provide as_cr_alnum, then we can't use it anyway until
> > the next stable Autoconf is released.
>
> Not so.
Hmm.
> The old style test scripts don't get an m4sh expansion pass, so _AS_CR_PREPARE
> has no bearing on the contents of test.sh. Rewriting it on HEAD as a new
> style test might involve adding this somewhere (since we know that either
> Autoconf is new enough and provides a good value for as_cr_alnum, or Autoconf
> is so old that it doesn't provide a value at all):
>
> AC_PROVIDE_IFELSE([_AR_CR_PREPARE], [], [
> as_cr_alnum='abcdef...XYZ0123456789'
> ])
My understanding was that Autoconf should get a new macro that then
provided this. Using the internal interface _AS_CR_PREPARE is wrong.
> On branch-2-0, I think the following is fairly future proof:
>
> test -n "$as_cr_alnum" || as_cr_alnum='abcdef...XYZ0123456789'
>
> In both cases, I think the slight untidiness is worth the extra safety added
> to sh.test... what do you think?
In both cases it is plain easier if I write
lt_cr_alnum=abcdef...89
and be done with it. I don't even need a variable here. I really don't
need to abstract out anything here, and IMNSHO this whole discussion is
much longer than what the problem at hand deserves.
Regards,
Ralf