Re: bad define semantics in GNU m4

[Richard Dawe]

Hello.

"Gary V. Vaughan" wrote:
[snip]
> On the other hand, I would like to support the standard in some way, perhaps
> changing the behaviour to match the SUS if m4 is invoked with --traditional,
> or if POSIXLY_CORRECT (hmm SUSLY_CORRECT...) is set in the environment?
[snip]

FWIW the new POSIX standard forms the core of the Single Unix Specification v3
(SUSv3). "Core" here includes a bunch of utilities, including m4.
POSIX_CORRECT could be taken to imply SUSLY_CORRECT. So I don't think
SUSLY_CORRECT is needed. (I get the impression you weren't serious, but...).

I checked a draft of new POSIX and the SUSv3 docs downloadable from the Open
Group and they appear to have the same defintions of popdef, pushdef,
undefire.

More more info see:

    http://www.opengroup.org/austin/
    http://www.unix.org/

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]