[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bad m4 quotation?

From: Stepan Kasal
Subject: Re: bad m4 quotation?
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 17:17:25 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

Hello Ralf,

after Noah's excellent analysis, we have to decide which of the problems should
be fixed.  Actually my opinion is exactly oposite:

On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 10:53:59AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Noah Misch wrote on Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 08:32:17PM CEST:
> > (Side note: the removal of double quotes is suspicious; it appears to change
> > behavior for weird tag names.  This may not matter too much.)
> Let's not worry about that until we get a report to this end.

Though tags cannot contain shell wildcards, they can probably contain
parentheses.  When I removed the double quotes, I gained nothing.
So I think it wouldn't matter if we put them back.

> > Long term, we might want to diagnose and forbid AC_CONFIG_<FOO>S tags 
> > containing
> > characters special to the shell, which would also catch macro calls.  For 
> > now,
> > let us fix this regression by treating the first argument to 
> > as we did in Autoconf 2.59:
> Yes.  Please apply, and thanks for analyzing and debugging this!

I don't like this patch.

IMHO, the small regression is worth the increased consistency.

(But I'm biased here, because I'm very proud of my rewrite of status.m4.  :-)

Or, at least, I'd do something like:

ac_config_[]m4_tolower([$1])="$ac_config_[]m4_tolower([$1]) dnl
dnl For historical reasons, treat command tag names differently:
m4_if([$1], [COMMANDS], [$2], [m4_normalize([$2])])"

Have a nice day,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]