Re: 13-m4-undivert-culprit.patch

[Akim Demaille]

>>>>> "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <address@hidden> writes:

>> I understand this can be unwelcome, please tell me.  But my
>> experience with Autoconf gave me some simple rules, and one of the
>> main conclusion is really `never compromise useful future extension
>> of macro when it can be done straightforwardly with existing
>> macros'.
>> 
>> And the 1-ary -> n-ary as a simple for-loop extension is the most
>> attractive of these, IMHO, extremely useless extensions.  Beware of
>> the dark side.

Gary> It took me a while to absorb this.  But, having dwelt on it for
Gary> a while, I agree with you.

BTW, any reason that if we have undivert(FILE) we don't have
divert(FILE)?  (Not that I find that this overload of undivert was
intelligent BTW, I would much prefer another set of macro for
undivert(UNEXPANDED BY ACCIDENT) will complain MACRO does not exist,
while divert(UNEXPANDED BY ACCIDENT) will just populate with junk
files instead of complain `not a number').

There is already so little type checking, corrupting this even more
would be bad.

I'm in favor of deprecating this `````feature''''''.  divert/undivert
take numbers, period.