I'm looking here for objections from the AutoConf list.
I could probably have a version tonight or tomorrow that ignores the copied LANG(C)->LANG(C+) stuff and looks something like this: AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB(library, function, params, [action-if-found], [action-if-not-found], [other-libraries]) ... really adding "params" in there before the optionals. I could get this together, test it myself, and have Sebastian Huber, jlm, and Ossama Othman (recent requestors) test it out to see if it works for them. Forgive me if I commit syntactical errors; I'm chronically looking things up. The function above would generate a call something like: AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB(<lib>, pipes::pipeCheck, [(char *) "test", (int) 42]) ... generating: (void) pipes::pipeCheck ((char *) "test", (int) 42) it would have to match against something like (ignoring return type): namespace pipes { int pipeCheck (char *var1, int var2); }; ...but then do we need to check for objects, too? I would consider that on a second-effort (you know, the infamous second-effort: all-singing, all-dancing, bloated excessive creeping feature of code... eek!). We could work this into a generic sense once it's functional. Allan Paul Eggert wrote: > > > From: Allan > > Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:01:05 -0400 > > > > What I'm asking is: how's the best way to go about this? Stop the > > copying of AC_TRY_LINK_FUNC(C) to AC_TRY_LINK_FUNC(C++), and generate > > C++ -usable code with versatility in the function-call? > > Yes. I think we need to rethink AC_TRY_LINK_FUNC entirely for C++. > The user needs to supply a sample call, not just the function name.