Re: [shell functions, was RE: solving of name conflicts in included.a]

[akim]

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 07:53:42AM -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Akim Demaille wrote:
> > I don't agree.  Autoconf does not use shell functions, it just says it
> > will some day.  If you want to use shell functions, don't do it
> > pretending Autoconf did first :)
> > 
> > Also, Autoconf will try to find a shell that supports functions.
> 
> Someone made the assertion that the next major release,
> already under CVS, did use shell functions.  If it is not,
> then it should.  Far, far too much programmer time and energy,
> not to mention build time, gets squandered messing around trying
> to support silly antiquated hobbyist versions of UNIX.  Let
> them install BASH and get out of our way.  Both of them.

Bash uses configure.

> BTW, why even bother looking for a real shell if you are
> not going to take advantage of it?

You probably misunderstood my point: the day it uses shell functions,
it will look for a shell that supports them, and of course, die otherwise.