> From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 07 Jun 2002 11:43:41 +0200 > > I think it is high time to disable include and sinclude from > Autoconf. That's too dangerous. Paul, do we agree? m4_include and > m4_sinclude are available since 2.50, and people are not supposed to > use include and sinclude. Do your greps reveal some people still use it?
I checked, and ihe only package I found was Gawk; it still uses sinclude. Gawk is still using Autoconf 2.13, but I've been after Arnold Robbins to upgrade. On May 20 I sent him the minimal patches to upgrade to 2.53, and I think he'll get around to doing it one of these days. I'll send him a further patch to eliminate sinclude, so that Gawk would also be safe for a 2.54 without sinclude. So I think it's OK to remove include and sinclude. By the way, the Autoconf manual never mentions m4_include or m4_sinclude, so it implies that m4_include and m4_sinclude are equivalent to their m4 equivalents, but that isn't quite right, is it? m4_include and m4_sinclude warn about multiple inclusions. > As an aside. I personnally consider it is a flawn in the specs of M4: > IMNSHO, something like > > patsubst([foo], [foo], [dnl]) > > should return a *quote* string, i.e., [dnl], not dnl. That's the > bottom line of our problem. I would really love to see a means to > educate GNU M4 in this regard. I don't really care how: be it a new > series of macros, a new option, a new name, whatever. I just want its > text processing macros to return a quoted string. I tend to agree, but wouldn't we have to give M4 a way to quote '[' and ']'? That would be a nice feature to have, but it's a nontrivial change.... _______________________________________________ Bug-m4 mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-m4
