> "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pavel> I believe that names beginning with am_ are
Pavel> private. I.e. AM_INCLUDE should become am_include. I believe
Pavel> that user code should not do anything with the names beginning
Pavel> with ac_ and am_.
I chose `_am_' instead t
>> I'd like to also work out a naming scheme for internally generated
>> targets. That way eventually it will be clear what people can rely
>> on and what they cannot. Suggestions here are welcome.
Alexandre> How 'bout `_am-target-name'? (note the leading underscore)
Sounds good.
I've updated
Hello, Akim!
> Under this condition, I will definitely quit the group. I'm OK with
> providing reasonable backward compatibility, but I'm tired (to remain
> somewhat polite) of wasting my time in details of the past.
You are missing the point completely. Nobody is asking _you_ to care about
bac
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Feb 7, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I am referring to other applications depending upon Autoconf such as
> > Automake, for which it is perfectly reasonable to require a version of
> > Autoconf which is released.
>
> But I
On Feb 7, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am referring to other applications depending upon Autoconf such as
> Automake, for which it is perfectly reasonable to require a version of
> Autoconf which is released.
But I disagree it's perfectly reasonable to require the latest
r
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Feb 6, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Don't go that way! AC_PREREQ.
>
> It won't let you define fallbacks for older releases, which is exactly
> the point. ifdef, as you proposed, is the way to go.
I think there is some
On Feb 5, 2001, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to also work out a naming scheme for internally generated
> targets. That way eventually it will be clear what people can rely on
> and what they cannot. Suggestions here are welcome.
How 'bout `_am-target-name'? (note the lead
On Feb 6, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't go that way! AC_PREREQ.
It won't let you define fallbacks for older releases, which is exactly
the point. ifdef, as you proposed, is the way to go.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red
> "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pavel> After another consideration I decided that AM_INCLUDE is not
Pavel> meant to be private since it appears in AC_SUBST.
But it is meant to be private. It is an implementation detail. If we
change the implementation it might just go
Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom, you should also know you can have a special exception, and tell
> > autoconf AM_INCLUDE is OK. But I agree with Pavel it looks way too
> > much like a macro name, in itself it is confusing.
>
> As far as I know, it cannot be done without breakin
Hello, Tom!
> What if instead we decide on a permanent naming scheme for automake
> internal variables? Then we can start moving towards that over time,
> starting here.
>
> What if instead we use `_AM_'? Or `_am_'?
After another consideration I decided that AM_INCLUDE is not meant to be
priva
Hello, Tom!
> Pavel> How about renaming AM_INCLUDE to AMINCLUDE everywhere? The
> Pavel> patch is attached. It fixes all tests.
My approach was too formal. AM_INCLUDE is a variable, but the names of
variables shouldn't contain any capital letters. My fault.
> What if instead we decide on a perm
> "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pavel> I see that you are not using the latest and greatest Autoconf.
Nope.
Pavel> Names beginning with AM_ are reserved for
Pavel> macros. Autoconf-2.49c will not allow such names in configure.
Hmm.
Pavel> That's why many tests are fa
> Tom, you should also know you can have a special exception, and tell
> autoconf AM_INCLUDE is OK. But I agree with Pavel it looks way too
> much like a macro name, in itself it is confusing.
As far as I know, it cannot be done without breaking compatibility with
Autoconf 2.13.
Too bad Autocon
Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello, Tom!
>
> I see that you are not using the latest and greatest Autoconf.
> Names beginning with AM_ are reserved for macros. Autoconf-2.49c will not
> allow such names in configure.
>
> That's why many tests are failing again - AM_INCLUDE is not
Hello, Tom!
I see that you are not using the latest and greatest Autoconf.
Names beginning with AM_ are reserved for macros. Autoconf-2.49c will not
allow such names in configure.
That's why many tests are failing again - AM_INCLUDE is not a good name
for a variable.
How about renaming AM_INCLU
16 matches
Mail list logo
