>>>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> On Jan 24, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>> writes:
Alexandre> I think it's ok. But I agree the code is messy. We need
Alexandre> AC_HOOK(MACRO, BEFORE, AFTER) in autoconf.
>> Wow! This sounds real hard, or at least, really expansive if we do
>> for all the macros. I was thinking of hooks for AC_PROG_CC and the
>> like.
Alexandre> Expensive?
Alexandre> AC_DEFUN([AC_HOOK],[define([$1], [$2]defn([$1])[$3])])
No, this is why I'm against all the stuff Libtool and Automake are
doing: you are forgetting that the core of the macro is wrapped in
_epi and _pro. *That*'s the problem. In addition you need at least a
dumb check that verifies a hook is not installed after the macro was
expanded. I agree it's unlikely, but given the freedom people took
with concatenating defn of macros, I'd like to have more sanity
checks.
So to run a hook you need to insert something *inside* the pro/epi
pair. This is pushing some load on every single AC_DEFUN'ed macros.
ANd that's where I expect a noticeable impact.
This is also why I was thinking of providing the right hooks for
AC_PROG_CC etc.: it's efficient, and we can place the hooks at the
right place, not before or after.
Finally, let me state things clearly: I'm doing this to help people
proceed with their bad habits, but from the beginning I was against
hooking on AC_PROG_CC etc. There should have been LT_PROG_CC
etc. and no macro redefinition games.
In fact, I am still against generic hooks because that's a bad thing
to do. Nobody where ever imagine doing this in another programming
language. Inserting stubs sounds better.
