Re: some missing _LT_DECL_SED requirements

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Gary,

* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:42:21PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, May 17, 2006 at 07:48:14PM CEST:
> >>All the more evidence for a nice automated check! :-)
> >
> >I don't think so.  Let's make it less unnecessary automation for once.
> >Less factorization, less requirements stuff; after all, there is IMHO no
> >need to factorize unless the stuff is actually supposed to possibly used
> >in different combinations.  But I've ranted about AC_REQUIRE/m4_require
> >and Libtool macros before, enough of that now...
> 
> Perhaps you misunderstand me?  I'm advocating sh.test style static
> check that tries to match uses of, say, $EGREP in an AC_DEFUN with a
> matching m4_require([_LT_DECL_EGREP]) at ``make test'' time.

Nope, I'm not misunderstanding you, I think.  Such an automated check
will not save you.

You can still get into trouble by requiring macros in the wrong order.
I.e., all macros have their requirements listed at the beginning, but
still some are expanded before their requirements.

IMHO this is an argument for not factorizing more than makes actually
sense from a script POV: if I have to think about requirement order of
third party macros, and I actually know in which order I want stuff to
appear in the output, and what I'm doing is linear, well, then why am
I not just writing it that way?

Cheers,
Ralf