Re: AC_FOREACH public?

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Keith,

* Keith MARSHALL wrote on Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 11:58:38AM CEST:
> >> But "Reply-to-All" is *not* the most appropriate solution --
> >> it's what I used here, so *you* can have *two* copies of this
> >> message.
> >
> > Personally, I configure my mailreader to discard duplicates.
> 
> Great, if you aren't compelled, by your corporate IT department,
> to use an unconfigurable lemon like Lotus Notes.

off-topic reply:

Then please adjust your mailing list subscription to not send you a
duplicate if that is what you want to.  It's also possible to subscribe
with several email addresses but only actually enable receiving to one,
so that mailman knows "who you are" for each of the addresses which you
might send from or set Reply-To: to.

I would be quite happy if this discussion about mailing list stuff could
move somewhere where it's on-topic, by the way.  savannah has some
resources for this, I believe.


on-topic reply:

I'll try to write documentation for the undocumented m4 macros
eventually, but would not mind being beaten to.  Stepan already said
this.

I do think the different naming conventions are a bit confusing for
the casual user (AC_*/AM_* vs m4_*), but I too believe they make sense
in the long run.  For example, Libtool 2.0 will offer all its macros
with LT_*/LTDL_* prefix (additionally to being backward-compatible to
the known names); gnulib provides macros starting with gl_*.  It's the
best protection m4 gives you in terms of not stepping on other packages'
toes.

Surely the documentation would benefit from improvements here.

Being deprecated is different that being removed, and as such it would
be good to have a reference to AC_FOREACH in the eventual documentation
of m4_foreach and others, with the info that AC_FOREACH is deprecated
(and why!) and not to be used for new code.

Cheers,
Ralf