Re: m4_wrap behavior

[Paul Eggert]

Stepan Kasal <address@hidden> writes:

>> I already provided such a patch, that guarantees LIFO order in m4_wrap
> ...
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2006-06/msg00060.html
>
> On a second thought, this is probably the best solution, let's
> accept a variant of this patch (I have not reviewed it yet, sorry).

Something like that sounds fine, but I worry about
having m4_wrap behave differently from M4's m4wrap.
That's an unhealthy naming convention.

Also, I worry that non-Autoconf uses of m4_wrap will break with the
new implementation, due to some obscure token-pasting or whatever
(sorry, I'm waving my hands here).

How about this idea instead?

 * Leave m4_wrap alone.
 * Use something like Eric's patch to define a new macro m4_wrap_fifo.
 * Modify Autoconf to use m4_wrap_fifo rather than m4_wrap.
 * Document m4_wrap_fifo.
 * Document that m4_wrap isn't portable.