[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: m4_wrap behavior

From: Stepan Kasal
Subject: Re: m4_wrap behavior
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 04:02:34 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/

Hello Paul,

On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 10:06:54AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Something like that sounds fine, but I worry about
> having m4_wrap behave differently from M4's m4wrap.
> That's an unhealthy naming convention.

I agree with you.  That is why I propsed that we just document that
it is not guaranteed whether m4_wrap is LIFO or FIFO.

> Also, I worry that non-Autoconf uses of m4_wrap will break with the
> new implementation, due to some obscure token-pasting or whatever
> (sorry, I'm waving my hands here).

Well, my concern was that non-Autoconf uses of m4_wrap could be
broken by the FIFO behaviour.  If we do not aim to fix that, we do
not need any wrapper, we can just fix the m4_wrap usage in Autoconf.
(patch to that effect will follow in a few days...)

Have a nice day,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]