RE: "use strict" in autoscan.

[Pavel Roskin]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Tim Van Holder wrote:

> > Fine with me.  Please, don't hesitate requiring some recent version of
> > Perl in autoscan.  And I believe Jim has macros to require some
> > specific version of perl which might replace the poor
> > AC_PATH_PROG(PERL) we have in Autoconf's configure.in.
> Wouldn't that macro be eligible for inclusion in autoconf itself? Or is
> it too specific?

I think it's eligible. Unlike C, Perl has no non-free implementation. The
version defines Perl quite well.

Given that, it's not unreasonable to ask the users to upgrade Perl if it's
too old. Testing Perl for features would be an overkill.

The world of Perl is better than the world of C, so Autoconf shouldn't
apply its purist approach to Perl. Especially since it's doesn't apply it
to itself :-)

> A 2.50-ready version was posted in bug-autoconf on 2001/01/19 (by me;
> subject is 'RE: Bug in AC_CACHE_VAL (maybe)').
> Jim's version (as included in help2man, for example) did not work with the
> current autoconf.

Do you have a patch to the documentation? I wish I had time to write it
for you but I don't :-(

Regards,
Pavel Roskin