Re: macro reuse

[Keith MARSHALL]

Ralf Wildenhues wrote, quoting me:
>>>
>>> That is not strictly true.  It'd undocumented (and as such you
>>> shouldn't rely on it), but you can
>>>   AC_REQUIRE([FOO], [FOO([arg])])
>> 
>> ...
>>
>> This suggested usage isn't simply undocumented; it actually conflicts
>> with explicitly documented behaviour.  Even if is is possible, (and 
I've
>> no doubt that it is), do you really consider it wise to even suggest 
it,
>> particularly since you also caution that it should not be relied on?
>
> I'm not suggesting it.  The OP should definitely not use it.  Sorry
> for mentioning it.  I merely wanted to avoid somebody "finding that
> information" in the Autoconf source code, and using it.  So I warned
> against it that it's not to be relied on.

Ah, sorry.  I misunderstood your intention in mentioning it, (and so
others may have too).  I read it as a suggestion that it was something
that might be considered as useful, albeit potentially risky.

> Enough warning signs now?

Yep.

> To be even more explicit: we would like that the users of Autoconf
> *only* rely on interfaces documented in autoconf.info.

No arguments on that; I agree 100%.

Regards,
Keith.