autoconf-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Moving diversions into M4sugar


From: Akim Demaille
Subject: Re: Moving diversions into M4sugar
Date: 27 Oct 2000 10:19:18 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands)

>>>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <address@hidden> writes:

Alexandre> On Oct 26, 2000, <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> In fact, I'd go farther that way, and move some of the diversions
>>> into m4sugar, some to m4sh and keep some in acgeneral.

>> I don't understand ``some in m4sh'', there is really nothing
>> related to it in there.

Alexandre> I'm talking about defining m4 diversion support and maybe
Alexandre> some generic diversion names into m4sugar, but moving most
Alexandre> of the diversions that are specific for shell-scripting to
Alexandre> m4sh.  And then, keep some autoconf-specific diversions in
Alexandre> acgeneral.m4

We're talking about the same thing then :)


Alexandre> The simplest way to do that is by defining macros in each
Alexandre> layer that adjust the numbers given as its arguments to one
Alexandre> plus the number of the diversions defined in the layer
Alexandre> itself.  Then, if you add a new diversion to m4sugar, you
Alexandre> just have to adjust the definition of
Alexandre> m4sugar_new_diversion, that all diversion definitions in
Alexandre> m4sh would use.  Then, if you add a new diversion to m4sh,
Alexandre> you adjust m4sh_new_diversion, that calls
Alexandre> m4sugar_new_diversion, and you're done.  We don't need an
Alexandre> AC_NEW_DIVERSION, though; autoconf's diversions can still
Alexandre> be built atop m4sh_new_diversion

I'm not yet sure we can go that way, the order of the diversions is
important.  It is important to have the full control over it.  I still
want to tune the numbers by hand.  If in the future we can see means
to keep the control without numbering by hand, why not.  If in the
future we realize we don't need some AC_ diversions in between the AS_
diversions, then why not.  But currently I do believe that if AS_ had
its diversions, then they would be intermixed with some of Autoconf.

A means to avoid renumbering too often (which has no reason to happen
in the case of Autoconf), is simply by numbering just like in BASIC :)



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]