[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

 > 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.

reply via email to

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