Re: m4_chomp [was: Use newer m4_map_args_{w,sep}]

[Paolo Bonzini]

> I thought about that; it means m4_expand would be slower, and it will be
> able to strip intentional newlines, but it would make m4_expand easier to
> use in isolation.  Maybe I go for m4_expand (current semantics, faster,
> and only safe if input doesn't end in unquoted # or dnl) and m4_expand_s
> (always safe, but slower and might strip trailing newlines provided by the
> argument), to mirror m4_esyscmd/m4_esyscmd_s?  On the other hand, the user
> can supply @&t@ if that trailing newline is important, so maybe making
> m4_expand always supply/strip an extra newline is the way to go?

I obviously prefer the latter... but why don't you instead simply make
chomp delete only *one* newline?

Paolo