Re: [Bug-gnulib] lstat/stat

[Derek Robert Price]

Jim Meyering wrote:

> Regarding this:
>
>  http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2003-05/msg00014.html
>  

[. . . snip . . .]

> Do you know if it'd solve the problem to make the prerequisite tests
> unconditional?

Yes, it would.

> I really hope so, because using cache variable names
> from other tests makes the code very fragile -- I've been burned by
> that too many times.  Even using cache variables defined in the same
> file has been known to throw me :-)
>
> I do see why that prerequisite-testing is conditional,
> and agree in principle with the general goal.

I should hope so.  Doesn't the "jm_" prefix on "jm_FUNC_LSTAT" mean you 
wrote the macro in the first place?  :)

> However, it'd be much better if macros like AC_FUNC_LSTAT and
> AC_FUNC_LSTAT_FOLLOWS_SLASHED_SYMLINK took optional `run-if-true'
> and `run-if-false' arguments.  Then we wouldn't need to rely on
> fragile cache variable names.
>
> I've Cc'd the autoconf discussion list.
> If no one objects, I'll change the stat/lstat-related AC_
> macros as I've suggested.

+1

. . .

Did you have an opinion about my tweaks to stat.c?

Derek

--
               *8^)

Email: address@hidden

Get CVS support at <http://ximbiot.com>!
--
Southern DOS: Y'all reckon? (yep/Nope)