On Jan 24, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandre Meanwhile, can't we just hide the uses of AC_PROG_CC and
Alexandre _CXX from automake by adding ][ in the middle of their
Alexandre names?
Right, but the code is already
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
"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
On Jan 24, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So to run a hook you need to insert something *inside* the pro/epi
pair.
Only if the macro is AC_DEFUNed. In which case, we might attempt to
match pro/epi in the defn and insert the hooks before/after the actual
DEFUN, i.e., between pro
The patch below gives this on the very CVS Automake package:
% diff Makefile.in Makefile.in.old
63a64,67
CC = @CC@
CPP = @CPP@
CXX = @CXX@
CXXCPP = @CXXCPP@
Index: ChangeLog
from Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* m4/depend.m4 (AM_DEPENDENCIES): Don't leave `AC_PROG_CC' etc. in
On Jan 24, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandre In which case, we might attempt to match pro/epi in the
Alexandre defn and insert the hooks before/after the actual DEFUN,
Alexandre i.e., between pro and epi.
Oh, just
"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandre Worst case, we can break AC_DEFUNed macros into two macros,
Alexandre one with the actual name, that contains the prologue and
Alexandre the epilogue and, between them, an invocation of another
Alexandre macro, containing the
Akim,
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. [...]
Emacs Lisp comes to mind.. ;-)
Regards,
Morten
"Morten" == Morten Eriksen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Morten Akim,
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. [...]
Morten Emacs Lisp comes to mind.. ;-)
Not exactly: AFAIK, you can't
Morten Emacs Lisp comes to mind.. ;-)
Not exactly: AFAIK, you can't freely hook whatever function: you hook
on existing hooks. Right?
Yes the 'hook' concept in Emacs Lisp requires a function to explicitly
run those hooks, i.e. hooks are only available if the person writing
a routine makes
On Jan 23, 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, IMHO, we have just no issue until we release an autoconf --trace
aware automake. And frankly, I can't wait :) Automake will be much
shorter (less hard coded knowledge on Autoconf), more robust (less
hard coded knowledge on Autoconf), and more
11 matches
Mail list logo
