[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Bug-gnulib] feature request: argp()

From: Bruno Haible
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnulib] feature request: argp()
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:06:01 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.5

Simon Josefsson wrote:

> I used AC_ARGP below.  Is there a policy about the gl_ prefix?  I
> found it slightly ugly, and it doesn't seem to be used consistently.

The prefix depends on the particular history of each module. For
modules originating in gnulib, we mostly use gl_; otherwise also
the abbreviation of the package or the inventor's initials.

> I'm using AM_CONDITIONAL below.

Hmm. I'm under the impression that AM_CONDITIONAL is one of the more
fragile or heavy features of automake. Can't you use AC_LIBOBJ instead?

> While testing this, I noticed that
> the getopt and xalloc packages (which argp depends on) have the same
> problem.

getopt has the same problem and uses the ELIDE_CODE macro which even
supports major, incompatible changes to the API. Given the API change
policy of glibc I'd suggest to use the same technique here.

> I also add a new module "sysexits", modeled after "exit",
> based on libc's sysexits.h that argp need.  Below I also modify
> argp-eexst.c to handle sysexits.h, I believe the patch is safe within
> libc too and I will send this patch to the libc maintainers soon.

Is this patch needed at all? Most lib/Makefile's have "-I.", and
therefore <sysexits.h> vs. "sysexits.h" makes no difference. I guess
what is needed here is another instance of the fnmatch_.h -> fnmatch.h


reply via email to

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