Akim Demaille wrote:
> dv> That's what Akim and I fight about all day long. Akim sees
> dv> it as a `convenience' and doesn't think something more severe is
> dv> needed. I think that it should be an error, because I haven't seen
> dv> a case where an AC_BEFORE warning is issued, and the user keeps
> dv> the reverse ordering on purpose. If I'm proven wrong, I still
> dv> think we should have something like AC_BEFORE_FATAL.
>
> Hm, we do debate about various things related to this, but I certainly
> do agree it should be an error.
Well, that's good news. Given your point of view on AC_REQUIRE [1],
and the fact that the doc says "_suggested_ ordering" about AC_BEFORE, I
thought you disagreed with me on this.
[1] as expressed earlier in this thread:
| dv> However, there is something that I consider as a real bug in the current
| dv> interface: if the macro A requires the macro B, and the macro B is
| dv> present in configure.in after A, A should not just call B. It should
| dv> abort at autoconf time and nicely ask the package writer to switch the
| dv> two calls.
|
| I personally don't agree.
--
/ / _ _ Didier Verna http://www.inf.enst.fr/~verna/
- / / - / / /_/ / EPITA / LRDE mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
/_/ / /_/ / /__ / 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel. +33 (1) 44 08 01 77
94276 Kremlin-Bic�tre cedex Fax. +33 (1) 44 08 01 99
