[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: build: be robust to missing flex
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: build: be robust to missing flex |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:23:28 +0200 |
hi Stefano!
Le 13 avr. 2012 à 10:16, Stefano Lattarini a écrit :
>> I confess I am a bit frustrated to define FLEX to yes/''
>>
> I agree with you, and in fact I find that confusing. I understand that it
> is done in order to be more consistent with what AC_PROG_CC and friends do,
> but here clarity should win over consistency IMHO.
>
> So what about naming the variable as 'LEX_IS_FLEX' instead? And then
> maybe, in follow-up patch (post-2.69), we could also introduce a similar
> naming for the variables set by AC_PROG_CC and friends (e.g., 'CC_IS_GCC'
> as an alias of what 'GCC' is currently defined to). And then maybe, in a
> further follow-up (for autoconf 3.0 perehaps?), deprecate the use of the
> older variables (GCC and company). How does this sound?
Sounds good to me. Yet, I confess that I would much
prefer true/false (or maybe :/false) to yes/''. WDYT?
It makes it easier to use from shell scripts, and allows
to make the difference between not-checked and false.