Re: AC_FUNC_FNMATCH jamboree patch

[Paul Eggert]

> From: Akim Demaille <address@hidden>
> Date: 07 Jun 2002 08:58:36 +0200
> 
> Paul, BTW, I have always hated AC_FUNC_FNMATCH for not _replacing_ the
> function, as do the others.  Do we have to reproduce the error to
> AC_FUNC_FNMATCH_GNU?

No.  Sorry, I didn't think of that.  How about if we remove the
existing AC_FUNC_FNMATCH_GNU and rename AC_REPLACE_FNMATCH_GNU to
AC_FUNC_FNMATCH_GNU?

> Oh, BTW, I was wondering: the fact that you pass the cache variable
> name is because you want to provide some form of compatibility?

Yes, that was it.  Some programs (e.g. a2ps, CVS, RPM) use
ac_cv_func_fnmatch_works to decide whether to replace fnmatch.

Perhaps we should have an upgrade strategy, something like this:

1.  Rename the current AC_FUNC_FNMATCH to AC_FUNC_FNMATCH_WORKS, and
    define AC_FUNC_FNMATCH to have the same meaning as
    AC_FUNC_FNMATCH_WORKS except that it also issues a warning that
    its meaning will change eventually and that if you want to avoid
    the warning you should use AC_FUNC_FNMATCH_WORKS.

2.  In some long-distant future version of Autoconf, modify
    AC_FUNC_FNMATCH so that it invokes AC_REPLACE_FNMATCH.