[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: semantique de m4 mal definie
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: semantique de m4 mal definie |
Date: |
Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:08:47 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 10:44:18AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
>> you suggest to step back into specified behavior (the interaction
>> between define and pushdef being unspecified in something apparently
>> named Single Unix).
>>
>> My answer is no. I do not care about Single Unix's specification for
>> M4, and I keep on planning using more GNU M4 features. GNU M4 is a
>> requirement for Autoconf, and there is no plan to make it easy to use
>> other M4s.
> Is this the official word, that I may quote on other mailing-lists ?
Actually I don't understand why you answer to me personally, and in
English. So yes.
> Beware that this is a *really* controversial decision, especially since
> I've already fixed OpenBSD's m4 enough (and NetBSD took my changes) so that
> it can run autoconf 2.57 without a hitch.
This is good for you, but I don't consider that Autoconf is concerned
by this. I do plan to use GNU M4's support for dlopen etc. and the
fact that other M4 don't support it will not be an argument in the
decision.
> If you purposefully add more gnu-m4 dependencies, some of us are going to
> be very annoyed, and we're possibly going to say that publically...
Let them do. I'm more interested in people participating in the
development of Autoconf anyway.
And, please, do quote me.