Re: Libtool-patches Digest, Vol 25, Issue 12

[Akim Demaille]

>>> "libtool-patches-request" == libtool-patches-request  <address@hidden> 
>>> writes:

Please, keep me cc'ed.

 > * Albert Chin wrote on Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 06:07:26PM CET:
 >> On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 10:47:43AM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
 >> > >>> "Peter" == Peter O'Gorman <address@hidden> writes:
 >> > 
 >> >  >        my_oldobjs="$my_oldobjs "`find $my_xdir -name \*.$objext -print 
 >> > -o -name \*.lo -print | $NL2SP`
 >> > 
 >> > Does Libtool have spies on shell features?  I tend to believe that
 >> > $(cmd) is well supported.  That would also simplify some code.
 >> 
 >> Old shells don't support it. I think you need some type of
 >> POSIX-compatible shell. Certainly Bourne-only shells don't support
 >> this.

Well, that reminds me when portability myths existed in the Autoconf
world.  Most were untrue, including those on functions.

 > Yep.  And since this particular line has no nested commmand substitution
 > or similar, where $() would provide real benefit, I would recommend
 > against it.

I was not thinking about this specific line, but in general.


Can anybody _prove_ that a shell onto which libtool runs (with all its
functions etc.) does _not_ support $()?