[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Reverse AC_REQUIRE and AC_CHECK_TYPE changes?
From: |
Lars J. Aas |
Subject: |
Re: Reverse AC_REQUIRE and AC_CHECK_TYPE changes? |
Date: |
Wed, 1 Aug 2001 20:48:55 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 08:26:16PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
: >>>>> "Adam" == Adam J Richter <address@hidden> writes:
: Adam> Anyhow, my feedback is fairly simple: there are two changes
: Adam> that I keep bumping into that tend to make a lot of work, and I
: Adam> don't get the sense from the autoconf.info file that they were
: Adam> really all that necessary:
:
: Adam> 1. AC_REQUIRE cannot be called from top level.
:
: It will not change. Never. Because it makes no sense, and is
: dangerous. I might detail in the documentation why we can't ensure
: the REQUIRE semantics at the top level, but I won't try to make it
: work.
I think Adam wants a macro, lets call it "AC_ENSURE_INVOKED([MACRO])",
that doesn't do dependencies between macros, but does make a dependency
between having invoked the macro, and the point of the ensurance
macro invokation. That would have meaning at the top-level. Is such a
macro desirable? I don't have a need for it, so I'm just asking...
Lars J
--
This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time.