[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch

From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:57:46 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031020 Debian/1.5-1

> I still disagree. It does matter to have function support, and we
> don't care about LINENO at all. There are known environment where
> shell functions are not supported by default, e.g., Ultrix.

I seriously doubt that any of the still existing Ultrix box sysadmins don't have a better shell at hand. I fail to believe that there are newbies playing with Ultrix who cannot download bash 1.x.

But anyway, my point was somewhat different: do you really want
Autoconf to require shell functions?  I did not.

I see. But I do, it is the only way to stop the bloating of configure scripts (I have more than two megabytes of them in GNU Smalltalk). And by limiting the code duplication, it also paves the way for m4 loops, specialization and more cool stuff, together with the patches I have to enable m4 lists and autoupdate them -- I did not send these patches because they are very delicate and I want to do more testing.

If everybody agrees we can use shell functions, then let's proceed.
This is quite an audacious change.  Given the popularity of changes in
Autoconf, I quite fear it...
I did not mean to use shell functions in the short term. I did not put in shell functions with a FYI, I would understand if you ripped off my write privileges :-) if I did something like that. I put in (after approval) a macro which has no ramification whatsoever on the produced configure scripts.

The first usage I planned was to add a shell function to match a string according to a glob pattern. This would be useful to simplify AT_XFAIL_IF invocations, matching your plan of using shell functions on Autotest at first.

I do not believe that the set of people/env running make check on
Autoconf is related in anyway with the set of people/env running
AFAICT, the set of programs using Autotest is so small, that the people running make check on autoconf is about the same as the same people running Autotest (as much as I like Autotest).

But this goes against this patch.
I don't understand how, sorry. Adding a m4sh feature does not mean that everybody will use it -- especially since m4sh is so largely undocumented, which is something I intend to fix one day.


reply via email to

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