Re: Documenting AC_LANG_CASE

[Pavel Roskin]

Hello, Akim!

Sorry for the late reply.

> I don't think we should document AC_LANG_CASE, and in fact I tend to
> think we should get rid of it (Autoconf does not use it).  I made it
> because at first it seemed to be a good idea, but it's a stupid one:
> AC_LANG_DISPATCH is the right interface.  The most important
> difference being that AC_LANG_CASE is closed, while AC_LANG_DISPATCH
> is open: code using the former is necessarily obsolete as soon as you
> (or the user) add a new language, while not the latter.
>
> Do you think about a particular case where this would be useful?

There is no such macros as AC_LANG_DISPATCH. There is _AC_LANG_DISPATCH,
which is a private macro. We can rename it, of course, or create a
fool-proof wrapper around _AC_LANG_DISPATCH.

My primary concern is that some very specialized macros that are currently
C-only may need minor changes for C++. Forcing AC_LANG_DISPATCH will mean
that the variable part of the macro will have to be separated into a
different macro.

I don't want to force any style (i.e. creating sub-macros), unless I have
a good excuse.

My feeling is that AC_LANG_CASE is more user-friendly.

Regards,
Pavel Roskin