Re: [Autoconf-patches] Support for nested AT_DATA

[Pavel Roskin]

Hello, Akim!

> I think your patch is wrong.  There is no reason to embed AT_DATA
> within AT_DATA (or I missed something).  The real problem is your
> willing to use AT_TEST_MACRO, or, if you prefer, the fact that
> AT_TEST_MACRO is attractive, but does not suit your needs.  In this
> case, you'd better use the primitive AT_CHECK macro.

I agree that creating constant files from configure was not a good idea. I
was going to put $CPP there, but in this case AT_DATA would not help since
it doesn't expand shell variables. But I may still want to use my code
that does expand shell variables, e.g.

cat >mycpp <<EOF
#! /bin/sh
$CPP 'address@hidden'
exit 0
EOF

You see, I would have problems with AT_DATA without actully nesting it. I
would feel better if something more generic than EOF were used in the
macro definitions. Maybe pathsubst is indeed an overkill, but why not
simply use AT_EOF?

ChangeLog:
        * tests/atgeneral.m4 (AT_DATA): use AT_EOF instead of EOF.
===================
Index: tests/atgeneral.m4
--- tests/atgeneral.m4  Mon Sep 18 22:05:04 2000
+++ tests/atgeneral.m4  Tue Sep 19 10:05:47 2000
@@ -332,8 +332,8 @@
 
 AT_DEFINE(AT_DATA,
 [AT_DEFINE([AT_data_files], AT_data_files[ ]$1)
-cat > $1 <<'EOF'
-$2[]EOF
+cat > $1 <<'AT_EOF'
+$2[]AT_EOF
 ])
 
 
===================

Regards,
Pavel Roskin