Re: semantique de m4 mal definie

[Akim Demaille]

 > On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 10:44:18AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
 >> you suggest to step back into specified behavior (the interaction
 >> between define and pushdef being unspecified in something apparently
 >> named Single Unix).
 >> 
 >> My answer is no.  I do not care about Single Unix's specification for
 >> M4, and I keep on planning using more GNU M4 features.  GNU M4 is a
 >> requirement for Autoconf, and there is no plan to make it easy to use
 >> other M4s.

 > Is this the official word, that I may quote on other mailing-lists ?

Actually I don't understand why you answer to me personally, and in
English.  So yes.

 > Beware that this is a *really* controversial decision, especially since
 > I've already fixed OpenBSD's m4 enough (and NetBSD took my changes) so that
 > it can run autoconf 2.57 without a hitch.

This is good for you, but I don't consider that Autoconf is concerned
by this.  I do plan to use GNU M4's support for dlopen etc. and the
fact that other M4 don't support it will not be an argument in the
decision.

 > If you purposefully add more gnu-m4 dependencies, some of us are going to
 > be very annoyed, and we're possibly going to say that publically...

Let them do.  I'm more interested in people participating in the
development of Autoconf anyway.

And, please, do quote me.