Re: RFE: configure -> dependency list on exit.

[Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Paul Eggert wrote:

> Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Should dependency-name be a package or a desired feature, which the
> > suggested package(s) support?
>
> A feature, obviously.  But I don't see the need for dependency-name in
> the first place.  I think it won't work in practice -- actual
> dependencies are too messy and too informal.

It doesn't have to work for every case to be very useful in some
cases.
> > > I think Paul's idea was to haves
> > >          AC_MSG_NOTICE (@var{message}, @ovar{priority})
> > > if the second argument is omited, the message is displayed immediately.
> > > Otherwise, the message is saved for the end.
> >
> > I think that is harder to understand, and this would be clearer when
> > reading.  For example, when hacking the texi it was pretty clear
> > what the @code{}, @file{} etc things did.
>
> If you're going to have new names only, you should put the priority
> as the first arg, since it's shorter.

I've lost you here: we still need to output a message, and it is not
coventional to have optional arguments first.  Optional arguments
can be left off completely.  One can default a priority easilty, it
is hard to default the message.
> As long as we're being more general, perhaps the general facility should
> be something like this:
>
> AC_ATEXIT(priority, action)
>
> That will let you do whatever you like at the end, including futz with
> the exit status I suppose.  Then we wouldn't need AC_MSG_END.

I don't understand this: is the action expanded as a macro, is it
arbitrary code, or what?  I think prioritising messages makes sense:
in the end it doesn't matter as far as execution is concerned, what
order messages are output. That isn't true for executable code, some
statements must come in a particular order.  Mistakes in message
priorities would be less dangerous than mistakes in the priority of
execuatble code.
> Also -- a small point -- priorities should all be positive.  (This
> allows for future extension.)

Dan Manthey wrote on: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 17:38:50 -0500
with Message-ID: <address@hidden>

DM>         I really like this solution, but it does beg one question: is a
DM> greater priority more urgent to report (should be reported before higher
DM> priorities), or is it more important to make visible on the display
DM> (should be reported after higher priorities)?
DM>         I think if we choose the former interpretation and allow negative
DM> values, then both ideas are captured because values of large magnitude and
DM> positive sign have priority in the first sense, while values of large
DM> magnitude and negative sign have priority in the second sense.

which is why I include negative numbers.  If he's prepared to forgo
this then OK.

>
        Thank you,
        Hugh