Re: some missing _LT_DECL_SED requirements

[Gary V. Vaughan]

[trimmed Eric, as he's probably bored of overhearing us by now ;-)]

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Gary,

Hallo Ralf,

> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:42:21PM CEST:
> > Perhaps you misunderstand me?  I'm advocating sh.test style static
> > check that tries to match uses of, say, $EGREP in an AC_DEFUN with a
> > matching m4_require([_LT_DECL_EGREP]) at ``make test'' time.
>
> Nope, I'm not misunderstanding you, I think.  Such an automated check
> will not save you.
>
> You can still get into trouble by requiring macros in the wrong order.
> I.e., all macros have their requirements listed at the beginning, but
> still some are expanded before their requirements.

Yikes!  I hope that isn't really the case.  Autoconf require graph 
tracing has gone to quite some lengths to ensure that all the macros you 
AC_REQUIRE are expanded before the body of the macro that requires them.

Oh wait, you mean that the expansion order of the required macros can't 
be inferred?  I agree with that, but I don't think it has any bearing on 
the usefulness of having a warning in macros that use, say, $Xsed 
without ac_require([_LT_DECL_SED]).

> IMHO this is an argument for not factorizing more than makes actually
> sense from a script POV: if I have to think about requirement order of
> third party macros, and I actually know in which order I want stuff to
> appear in the output, and what I'm doing is linear, well, then why am
> I not just writing it that way?

ACK.  So long as there is (preferably) no code duplication :-D

Really, the point is moot, as I have no clue how to reliably extract
a list of macros that forgot to require the appropriate DECLs :-(

Cheers,
        Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  address@hidden,gnu.org}
Research Scientist   ( '/   http://blog.azazil.net
GNU Hacker           / )=   http://trac.azazil.net/projects/libtool
Technical Author   `(_~)_   http://sources.redhat.com/autobook