[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Lay groundwork for exec. ext. support

From: Tim Van Holder
Subject: Re: Lay groundwork for exec. ext. support
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 19:50:10 +0200

> I can understand your dislike of using eval, of course, but I didn't
> find a better eval-less form when testing for this suggestion.

Of course, your method could make it very easy to add tool support
(i.e. add $tool$base$foo to the list for each $base$foo it already
has).  I just figured this for loop would be clearer and less likely
to break on "interesting" shells.
Plus, the list isn't currently set anyway, so this point is mostly

As for Akim's suggestion (missing which / confwhich) - I still don't
see how these scripts would work except by checking the system
they're running on - which at best requires a call to uname (if the
systems that need extension support can easily be detected that way)
or at worst config.sub/config.guess.  And requiring those for a that simply has


is just a teensy bit excessive.

Factoring the path searching out of autoconf itself is a good thing
though, especially if third-party macros start using that external
script (I find myself often adding this loop to user-supplied

reply via email to

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