|
From: | Peter Breitenlohner |
Subject: | Re: Autoconf "languages" (was: AC_FOREACH public?) |
Date: | Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:12:01 +0200 (CEST) |
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Keith Marshall wrote on Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 01:32:46AM CEST:On Friday 21 October 2005 10:42 pm, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:But you are only using the top of the iceberg. ?Other people benefit from this clear layering. When another user use `autom4te --lang=M4sh' to generate shell scripts that are not configure scripts, it matters that AS_* and m4_* are not Autoconf macros, and that m4_forearch is available.Oh, come on! Who, outside of your core developer team, is *ever* likely to do this?Not many, probably.Where's the documentation to make it accessible to the masses?Very good point.Why would anyone want to do so anyway? If I want to write a shell script, other than as a configure script, it's *much* more logical and convenient for me to just write directly as such, in the shell's own native language.
Not exactly what was said above, but related: There are lots of configure.ac's that e.g., do exactly the same thing for a whole lot of subpackages, and could be written as for foo in one two three four etc; do <some-$foo-dependent-tests-or-AC-WITH-or-ENABLE-etc> AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS([$foo]) done except that shell variables as arguments to AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS don't work too well. So instead these configure.ac's have to repeat essentially the same code many times. Having a documented AC_FOREACH would allow for a clean solution, somehow like AC_FOREACH([FOO], [one two three four etc], [ <some-FOO-dependent-tests-or-AC-WITH-or-ENABLE-etc> AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS([FOO]) ]) Peter Breitenlohner <address@hidden>
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |